Greybeard Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I'm with butchill 100% on this one, what sort of left wing ill concieved garbage is this? Investment requires a return metalman, pension funds invest heavilly in companies that attempt to make millions, I presume that you would wish them to make a loss. It couldn't be, could it, that the council are refusing to be blackmailed into granting planning permission fo a housing development they see as inappropriate. If the developers had any nous they'd just post the application off to Westminster for 'Two Jags' to rubber stamp. And as for pension funds, - if Gordy Brown wasn't sucking them dry we would all be a lot better off, - I hope my pension fund isn't investing in this Menta outfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I'm not against anybody making a profit, but as Feargal points out, there's no earthly reason to link the Beeley Wood development to the Ski Village at all... the two applications should be completely separate. If they can't make any money from the revamped Ski Village on its own, why are they building it? This is just them trying to force the councils hand by saying 'If you won't let us make millions by building a little boxworld in an unsuitable place, we'll take our ball home'. But the councils have been doing this for years Menta did not invent this type of offsetting deal the councils did thats what the fuss is about 106 funds now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theripsaw Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 . what about a little piece about 106 funds collected ove rthe years and never spent also Go on then, but not really relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Thats very sad it's closing down, I went there the first year it opened, i thought it was a great idea, in fact I was just showing the videos to someone a few weeks ago that we took when we took the kids skiing there that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Here's the original thread: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=27548 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theripsaw Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 But the councils have been doing this for years Menta did not invent this type of offsetting deal the councils did thats what the fuss is about 106 funds now S106's arent an off-setting deal. They are a way of ensuring the community as a whole gets some benefit from the increased values associated with the granting of planning permission, or doesnt have to foot the bill for infrastructure works needed to support the development. The building of a private moneymaking venture isnt exactly an onerous obligation, its more like a bonus. This has nothing to do with S106 agreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Irrelevant drivel. You cant buy planning permission (legally). If they think the ski development would provide an adequate return they would do it. If it needs subsidising by the profits of another development then their business plan is all wrong. You have obviously not heard of a section 106 then. Council grants planning permission on the proviso that the developer pays shed loads of money to council for them to use on improving the surrounding area, something that I thought the council tax was there for. Drivel on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theripsaw Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 You have obviously not heard of a section 106 then. Council grants planning permission on the proviso that the developer pays shed loads of money to council for them to use on improving the surrounding area, something that I thought the council tax was there for. Drivel on that. Pipped you to it! The granting of PP is based on a little more that the 106payment the developer is prepared to cough up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchill Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 S106's arent an off-setting deal. They are a way of ensuring the community as a whole gets some benefit from the increased values associated with the granting of planning permission, or doesnt have to foot the bill for infrastructure works needed to support the development. The building of a private moneymaking venture isnt exactly an onerous obligation, its more like a bonus. This has nothing to do with S106 agreements. but there is approx 2 billion never been spent on the improvments agreed the companies who gave the money are sueing some councils for the money back because the councils never did the work promised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wentypence Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 but there is approx 2 billion never been spent on the improvments agreed the companies who gave the money are sueing some councils for the money back because the councils never did the work promised This is interesting- do you have a link / source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now