Cheers Walter. So you stand by the statements you made (as a high powered lawyer) that I've proven to be bollocks? Surely with your unprecedented legal expertise you can prove that you're right?
Yes, I could, but I cannot be arsed. You ****ed up, and you're trying to wriggle out of it. I can understand your embarrassment. It's easier to have a pop at me (or, rather, at whatever demon of yours that I represent). I have grown bored with this argument. I have things I have to do. You continue to chase your demon, if you want to, and I shall wonder at your desperation from afar.
It looks as though very much the opposite is true. To be fair HIAG, it certainly wouldn't be the first time you've ****ed up and then spent half a dozen pages trying to wriggle out of it.
Interesting. So you maintain that s106 has been abolished whilst also maintaining that it has been extended. You're either extremely confused or.... You also maintain that small developers make up the bulk of house builders in the UK despite the fact that all evidence confirms that's nonsense. You're either extremely confused or... I bet you wish you'd stuck to pretending you're a rock god! Tell us about the time you headlined at Glastonbury before being helicoptered over to your sell out gig at Wembley Stadium!
I take you are an expert on all this as well then? Frankly I have no idea what they are arguing about and would never presume to say one or the other is wrong. Obviously there is a difference in what they are saying, but can you really say HIAG is wrong and Shteve is right. No you can't, as nor could I say the other way round. As a tip, why not stick to subjects you know about, rather than juimping on a bandwagon to bash HIAG at every single opportunity. All I will say is that if HIAG is bullshitting, he has taken it to a new level. I don't think Shteve would have written so much if there wasn't some truth in what he is saying. Had I tried to argue HIAG's case, I'd have been shot down in 2 minutes. The fact that this is still going suggests it is not as simple as that to me.
Exactly! I haven't a single clue WTF they're talking about, so I refrain from commenting. But then, I'm not searching for any tiny window of opportunity to have a pop at HIAG, or anybody else for that matter.
I've presented information to confirm that HIAG is talking nonsense. He stated that s106 has been abolished. It categorically hasn't. Bizarrely he then went on to build an argument about how s106 (which he was previously insistent had been abolished) becoming applicable to smaller schemes would cripple the housing market. He stated that developments of 1-10 units make up the bulk of house building in the UK. They categorically don't as the stats show. They make up less than 10% of house building in the UK. He was talking out of his arse as usual. He is very much a fantasist and it's hilarious to witness.
I don't need to write a long essay to know HIAG doesn't know what he's talking about. He claimed s106 had been abolished but there is a s106 happening with a big development in a town near me as we speak.
Would you say that he has no knowledge of any of this? Fantasist or not, there is a lot of information provided. Is it all nonsense? It's very plausible to someone who knows nothing about all this. A fantasist would have backed off after the first exchange. He may or may not be wrong, but surely he has more knowledge on this than the layman?
He's borderline clueless. Anyone can google anything about anything when they're trying to come across as credible in a discussion with a layman. It's harder to remain credible when you're trying to piece together bits of information on a subject you are clueless about in a debate with someone who actually does understand it. He presented some statements as fact on the assumption that no one would pick up on them despite the statements being categorically incorrect. The fact that he has done similar in the past suggests that he thinks everyone who posts on this forum is thick whereas the reality is we all have our specialist subjects! A couple of people have been discussing trading commodities. I have very limited knowledge on that subject so I wouldn't contemplate trying to sermonise on it! Has he ever backed off after the first exchange? On any subject? Ever?
This is why HIAG always ends up squirming. He makes bullshit statements, then spends his time trying to wriggle out of it. When he's finally been exposed he tries to brush it off as 'I was only joking' Proper gobshite
It's a strange subject to start spouting bullshit over though? I just googled s106 (and before this debate I woiuldn't have known the term at all, so wouldn't be able to google) and I came up with this http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1329179/changing-charges-s106-changes-will-affect-councils. Seems to reflect what HIAG is saying to me - an admitted outsider, with zero knowledge and all that.
This is all very simple. Our planning laws have, for a long time, provided for developers who build a certain number of houses to build a certain number for social housing. There has been a tariff (or levy) in operation, so that the more houses that are built for profit, the greater the number of houses that have to be built for social housing. Because, that's the thing, you see, there is no (or very little) profit for the developer in building social housing. If it, effectively, a gift by the developer to the local authority, or rather, to those who are lucky enough to own a housing association. The question is, where do you set the threshold at which this tariff/levy kicks in? If you set it too low, you will discourage a significant amount of house-building, and if you set it too high, you will prevent local authorities from providing for cheaper (social) housing for those poorer inhabitants/families in the locality. Towards the latter part of 2014, the Government proposed a Bill, the purpose of which, if it becomes implemented into our laws, would be to give local authorities the power to determine for themselves their own affordable (social) housing policy for developments consisting of no more than 10 units (houses or flats), or exceeding a footprint of no more than 1000 square metres. The Bill hasn't yet been passed, so, in the interim, the Government, as a policy-decision, directed local authorities to not charge a social housing levy on developments of no more than 10 houses/1000 sq mtrs. This was widely reported in the press as the Government having "scraped" sec 106 for small developers. It wasn't quite accurate (for those of us expert in this field), but it was accurate enough as a shorthand way of describing things to the lay punter. From around October/November 2014 (I think), most (I would guess, every) local planning authority in the land adopted the Government's policy change, and no longer charged a social housing levy on residential developments of no more than 10 units/less than 1000 sq mtrs. The immediate effect of the adoption of this policy change was to reinvigorate the house-building market, because it incentivized the smaller/medium-sized developer to get back into the game. Why? That's very easy to understand, in fact. A small/medium developer will, typically, work on around 18-30% profit from his development, depending on localized difficulties (such as typography, contamination, etc), and how highly he has geared his investment (the more he has to pay in interest or joint venture charges, the less profit he will get, etc). For a developer, building, say, 9 houses, to be forced to designate 3 of those houses as social housing would, in most cases, make the project so unprofitable as to be unworkable. One of the principle - if not the key - reasons why the Government introduced the policy change was for this very reason, that small/medium developers had been squeezed out of the market by the fact that the social housing levy had been set too low. Last Friday, there was a decision handed down by the High Court that over-turned the Government's policy change. The challenge was brought by Reading council, who argued that the policy was contrary to the planning regime (as set out in the Town & Country Planning Act and its satellite legislation), which, of course, it was, because it hasn't, yet, been implemented fully as law. The effect of this decision will, undoubtedly, be an immediate cessation and reversal of the policy, with the consequence that it will reduce the number of planning applications being filed for developments of 10 houses or less, and bring about the very same stagnation in the house building market that the Government was so keen to get rid of, last year. I really didn't want to have to go into this kind of detail (and it does only scratch the surface, as I have tried to make it comprehensible to non-lawyers), but I am growing extremely annoyed at being slandered by Schteeve. He clearly doesn't have a clue about the decision that was handed down last Friday, or the ramifications that will, almost indefinitely, follow. Instead of discussing the case with me (obviously, he cannot), he chooses to slander me and my professionalism, a very foolish thing to do. According to Schteeve, the decision that was handed down last week, a decision that he hasn't looked at, let alone considered, only affects Reading. According to him, it won't have any significant impact on the level of house building in this country. He may be right, but that can only be an opinion, and it certainly isn't a point of view that he can use to slander me - because, he might be wrong. To hide his lack of knowledge on this subject, Schteeve has also attacked me for suggesting that Section 106 had been abolished. As I previously explained in earlier posts, on another thread - and which I explain further in this post - I merely took the shorthand lay-punter/tabloid approach, to summarize the effect of the Government's policy, which was to, effectively, abolish the affect of Section 106 for developments of no more than 10 houses/1000 sq mtrs. My statement, whilst not accurate when looked at from the position of a full professorial lecture on the subject, was not inaccurate as regards the practical effect; and no one other than an OCD-****wit would have taken issue with me on the matter, let alone drag it down to the point where I am being defamed. The other OCD-like point on which Schteeve seeks to attack me is regarding my suggestion that the bulk of house-building in the country is undertaken by small/medium-sized builders/developers. Again, that he should use this debatable point as a means to defame my professional knowledge is rather unfortunate. What I would do is ask each and every one of you look log into your local planning portal (you can easily find in on line) and perform a cursory review of the first, say, 100, planning applications that will be listed; and count how many of them are for developments of 10 houses or less, and then to make up your own mind as whether you accept what Schteeve says (that small/medium-sized) developments do NOT make up the bulk of house building in this country, or whether you accept my contrary argument. Whichever view you come to, I would hope that you do not take the opportunity to defame either Schteeve or me, but rather use it as a springboard for further discussion or debate. Because, ultimately, any reasonable person will have to admit that the point is debatable. I am convinced I am correct on the point, but I would not seek to slate or slander anyone who has a reasonable argument (and proof) to the contrary. I apologise to those of you who had already grown bored of this pathetic spat between Schteeve and me, but hope that you can understand why it was important that I set it all out in one central post. At the very least, I would hope that Schteeve will stop his defamatory remarks and, instead, engage in a rational debate.
He said it had been abolished. It hasn't as per the article you just quoted. It's that straightforward. It would be like insisting that speed limits in the UK have been abolished. That would also be categorically incorrect. He then built an argument around how it will have an impact on smaller developers, which it may do, although his belief that a ruling in a single council will automatically mean that ruling will become a national ruling is quite frankly rank stupidity. It would be like insisting that because a one way system had been implemented in Reading town centre all town centres nationwide would now have to implement a one way system. How can one of Britain's finest legal minds build an argument around an issue that he previously stated was no longer in existence? He seems extremely confused. It's also a concern that Britain's most eminent property lawyer believes that the bulk of UK house building is made up of 1-10 unit developments when the stats show that to be, let's use that term again, rank stupidity. I admire your loyalty to a fellow Spurs fan although suggesting that he is correct when the facts demonstrate that he's wrong means that you are either blindly loyal or...I won't use that term again! Why he feels the need to present himself as an expert in all fields who leads the perfect life is another matter. I suspect a psychiatrist would have a field day with him but then I am not a psychiatrist. HIAG probably thinks he is though!
Fair enough. As I say, I wouldn't presume to offer an opinion on this. Only got involved to counteract Piskie - he just loves to spout his own brand of nonsense anywhere HIAG goes. HIAG is known for some very outrageous comments, but he's been on the Spurs board since this place began (approx) and it is always good natured bollox. Juggernaults and the like, which seems to get the back up of a select few people (I think we can add you to that list) but the rest of us enjoy it for what it is, over the top and jokey. This thread is not like that stuff, he seems to be trying harder to present a serious face, hence my query about whether there is any merit in what he says. I still think it is very unlikely that he knows nothing about the subject given the detail used. I wouldn't know where to begin to construct that much detail if I had no knowledge at all. Nor could I understand wanting to. But clearly you know your stuff, so I am still not judging who is correct/incorrect.
Oh, sweet Jesus! I am barely finished posting a long and reasoned plea for you to stop slandering my professionalism, and you come out with this further attack! I explain this fully in my last post. Section 106 was, effectively, abolished for developers making planning applications for projects comprising of no more than 10 houses/1000 sq mtrs. I used a shorthand means of getting this point across, not expecting some OCD-riddled ****er to use is as a means to try to beat me to death with it. All you have done, here, Schteeve, is demonstrate your supreme ignorance on how the law works. You have failed to grasp the principal point that the High Court made a general statement regarding the legality of the Government's policy change; you have failed to grasp the fact that many, if not every single, local planning authority in the country had been implementing the policy change; and you have failed to grasp the fact that the implications of the decision are far more wide-ranging than the boundaries of Reading. Is there really any need for this kind of abuse and slander? Again, is there really any need for this? Have a pop at me, as I clearly represent something bad that happened to you at some point in your miserable life, but do you really have to insult the intelligence of others? Why are your doing this?
o You fell at the first with another sweeping statement/generalisation. It's not compulsory across all councils, each council differs depending on the housing requirements of the area. Manchester for example has recently consented a 450 unit scheme (Angel Gardens) that has no social housing. If that scheme were in some parts of London they would be hit with as much as 50% social housing. That's not what you said. Your statement was that s106 didn't exist any more and as we were discussing the redevelopment of White Hart Lane we weren't focussing on a 1-10 unit scheme! I've presented stats about how many units are built by 1-10 unit developers and it's nowhere near the "bulk" of the UK house building market! You don't seem to like people dealing in facts HIAG!
Because you don't know when to just hold your hands up and admit that you are wrong, regardless of whether the subject is football, property or anything else.
Putting aside your further defamatory comments, all you have done is present an argument. I don't see anything that conclusively presents the case for declaring that most of the housing in this country is provided by the major house-builders. Part of the problem, anyway, is the simple fact that, for the past decade, the smaller builder has been squeezed out of the market and has been in steady decline. the Government has already admitted the fact that the large house builders cannot, by themselves, provide all the housing that is needed, which is the very reason why they made their policy-change last year. It might well be the case that over the past decade most of the new housing had been built by the major house builders, but that's only because they have been the only ones able to carry out any significant building. The fact remains that their efforts are no where near enough to satisfy demand. That, alone, is a recognition of the fact that small/medium-sized developers play a significant and substantial role in the house-building market. You might be right. I might be right. But, for the love of God, man! don't use what ought to be a rational debate to exorcise your demons against me in the tone and manner that you have been. I am a joker, yes, but please don't mistake me for a fool.
