When is a house completed?, It seems our councillors excel themselves again! Options

[Andy Capp]

It seems our fumbling councillors have been tucked-up by a developer...again!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=16594

[NWNREADER]

It seems our fumbling councillors have been tucked-up by a developer...again!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=16594

Not sure that is entirely fair (yet).
Sounds more like the developers trying to avoid putting their hand in their pocket as long as possible.
A builder would say a house is completed when it is ready to sell, an estate agent/lawyer would say it is when the sale is 'complete'.
If the provision of the bridge is a 106 deal, then I believe the developer is right, as that money comes due on occupation.....
Happy to be wrong, and I'm often happy....

[Andy Capp]

Of course the developers are putting it on. The point is, the agreement is ambiguous and surely should have been defined better. Perhaps our 'esteemed' officers have 'gaffed'?

My humble experience is that completion is when the keys are handed to the owners.

[Turin Machine]

In many coutries tax is only paid when the building is 'topped out' which is why you see so many constructions looking partially finished. (fact)

[Cognosco]

Not sure that is entirely fair (yet).
Sounds more like the developers trying to avoid putting their hand in their pocket as long as possible.
A builder would say a house is completed when it is ready to sell, an estate agent/lawyer would say it is when the sale is 'complete'.
If the provision of the bridge is a 106 deal, then I believe the developer is right, as that money comes due on occupation.....
Happy to be wrong, and I'm often happy....

The builders can say what they like and the council have to listen when has it been any different in Newbury?

[NWNREADER]

I suggest, before 'we' decide what the agreement means - let alone says - we should have sight of it? Otherwise we are merely reacting to already biased comments......

[Andy Capp]

I suggest, before 'we' decide what the agreement means - let alone says - we should have sight of it? Otherwise we are merely reacting to already biased comments......

The fact the argument is being had suggests things are not well.

[NWNREADER]

The fact the argument is being had suggests things are not well.

I agree with that, and of course the developers & racecourse care not a fig for the locals.
The only thing about a planned development that can be believed is what is in place when the development is completed. Promise the earth, throw mud, hand over dust

[Andy Capp]

Perhaps a condition of approval should have been the completion of the bridge first?

[Cognosco]

Perhaps a condition of approval should have been the completion of the bridge first?

Yes sensible but that would not have been approved by the developer of course? WBC do not tell developers what to do it is the other way round. It has always been that way with Newbury perhaps why we are in the state we are.....

[Bofem]

The average cost of these developer contributions is £5k a house in West Berks, compared to £800 per house in Basingstoke or £1200 per house in Wiltshire.

It's not 'free money' as councillors would have you believe - more a stealth tax on first time buyers. Quite surprising for the Tories.

Maybe WBC need to learn some lessons...
Take the Kennet Heath estate in Thatcham (Redrow and Barratt). Built on a reedbed, you'll be surprised to learn it floods often. The workmanship is appalling, there's no community planning (800 new houses with no shops or parks).

[Cognosco]

The average cost of these developer contributions is £5k a house in West Berks, compared to £800 per house in Basingstoke or £1200 per house in Wiltshire.

It's not 'free money' as councillors would have you believe - more a stealth tax on first time buyers. Quite surprising for the Tories.

Maybe WBC need to learn some lessons...
Take the Kennet Heath estate in Thatcham (Redrow and Barratt). Built on a reedbed, you'll be surprised to learn it floods often. The workmanship is appalling, there's no community planning (800 new houses with no shops or parks).

Well look on the bright side.... at least the developers are still in business? Never mind the poor purchasers at least they have somewhere to live. Bit like our poor bankers we have had to bail out if we do not support them they will take their business abroad......

Building plots are in short supply you know in Newbury and developers must be able to build somewhere or they will not be able to survive. Hence we need a Pigeon Loft Pavillion in Victoria Park you know?

[Bloggo]

Perhaps a condition of approval should have been the completion of the bridge first?

Absolutly spot on and I'm sure if the council held their ground and insisted on this then the builders/developers would have backed down. Afterall if they don't build they go out of business. The council needs to be tougher with guys.

[Richard Garvie]

A lot of very sensible comment on this thread. Rather than bickering over when the bridge should be built, the discussion should be around the suitability of the local infrastructure and that the improvements proposed do not go far enough. Why the Lib Dems are shouting about this now is beyond me, they had the whole planning application process to raise this issue and the Tories are just as bad for allowing developers to do what they like. We need strong leadership on planning issues, and neither the Tories or the Lib Dems have provided that to date.

[Bloggo]

A lot of very sensible comment on this thread. Rather than bickering over when the bridge should be built, the discussion should be around the suitability of the local infrastructure and that the improvements proposed do not go far enough. Why the Lib Dems are shouting about this now is beyond me, they had the whole planning application process to raise this issue and the Tories are just as bad for allowing developers to do what they like. We need strong leadership on planning issues, and neither the Tories or the Lib Dems have provided that to date.

Anyone who thinks about this project for one second will know that the present infrastructure won't support the developement and the timing of the bridge construction is crucial.
Letting the developers off the hook will on this will only make the problem worse.
How anyone can believe that this huge amount of dvelopment in an area with little access is sustainable is beyond me.

[Richard Garvie]

Anyone who thinks about this project for one second will know that the present infrastructure won't support the developement and the timing of the bridge construction is crucial.
Letting the developers off the hook will on this will only make the problem worse.
How anyone can believe that this huge amount of dvelopment in an area with little access is sustainable is beyond me.

This has been my argument with the council regarding ALL proposed developments. By selecting two sites, the council leave themselves open to be held to ransom.