I have answered everything you have raised; and you have, time and time again, demonstrated your ignorance of the law. Do me a favour, and summarize the main facts of that Reading case, and provide us with the key quotes from the judge's decision.
The main facts of the Reading case are in the public domain and to be fair you've summarised them quite well. If you like I can cut and paste your post? However, you have made at least a couple of statements which you have presented as fact and I have shown them to be incorrect. It's that simple. Lots of long posts and bluster won't cover that up. Anyway, I'm bored of you. I'm off to Reading to buy some land. If I need a good lawyer I'll give you a call. Maybe you know someone.
That's your get-out, yeah? Simply write-off the efforts I have made to clarify the battle-lines that you (not me) have drawn in the sand, in an attempt to make our spat comprehensible to others, as nothing more than bluster? That's it? Okay. So be it. I have set out my stall as comprehensively as I intend to, and I am not going to waste any further part of my life on the matter. You continue to spout the same old ****, if you like. Me, I'm content for people to make up their own minds on who has been the biggest twat in this spat. Either way, it makes no difference to me.
For those of you interested enough to look further into this spat between me and Schteeve might care to cast your eyes over these headlines. I suspect that we're going to be seeing more and more of this kind of debate, as it filters through to commentators and the less astute solicitors/barrister what has happened and the impact that it is going to have: http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/...ith-same-obligations-as-uks-biggest-builders/ http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/...xemptions-hit-by-court-ruling/8687205.article
Great, two articles that demonstrate that your initial statement that s106 had been abolished was absolute nonsense (and just as a reminder, we were discussing the redevelopment of White Hart Lane not a small scheme). Thanks for posting them HIAG!
Just to remind everyone - because he is desperately trying to bluster his way around this fact - Schteeve, the expert land trader that he is, reckons that the recent High Court decision is limited only to Reading, and that the decision will not affect other councils. Bearing that in mind, read those articles, and see what other experts (like Schteeve) think. My very strong suspicion is that the effect of the decision hasn't yet filtered down to everyone, and that it will take a couple of weeks for it to do so; and after that period of time are we going to see a proper debate. I won't expect Schteeve to engage with me, or other experts, in that debate, because he clearly knows it all already.
I don't think it will automatically be adopted by every council. You do. That's a difference of opinion. Precedent suggests though that when one council pushes through a change of policy it doesn't automatically become nationwide. In fact I doubt that's ever happened as what's right for Tower Hamlets isn't right for Westminster and what's prioritised in Harrogate is different to the housing priorities in Middlesbrough. I also said that any extra costs will be absorbed into the deal and it will either be the landowner, developer or end user (or perhaps all three) who will have to cover the costs. That's part of the game. One of the people quoted in the article said the same thing. In summary I've been consistent. You however haven't. You originally stated that s106 had been abolished when we were discussing the development of White Hart Lane. That was categorically incorrect. You've tried to cover up that mistake by pretending that you were referring to a proposal for small developments. Is Levy only planning on putting ten houses on White Hart Lane? You have since been trying to use an amendment in s106 policy to try and win an argument. Do you not realise how silly you look banging on about a policy that you had previously insisted had been abolished whilst referring to yourself as an "expert"!
Sorry, but again, you do nothing here than demonstrate your ignorance of the law! It isn't an option for any council to choose whether or not it follows the decision handed down in the Reading case. The effect of that case is to tell every council that the policy change made by the Government last year is contrary to law, and that if councils do not revert back to how things were prior to the policy change, they will be breaking the law. Your entire slanderous attack on me was sparked by my simply making you aware of this case, in the (so it would now appear, misguided) belief that it would be of interest to you. Instead of accepting my offer with the good grace that it deserved, it seemed to spark in you some kind of resentment, and you immediately set off on a campaign of hate and slander. You have accused me of not knowing the law, when it is clearly the case that, in fact, it is you who do not know the law! The way that you have conducted yourself has been abhorrent. The one good thing that has emerged from the entire unhappy episode is that everyone can now see that.
The other issue HIAG was struggling with was his assertion that the bulk of houses built in the UK are delivered by developers of 1-10 unit schemes. I have presented some stats comparing what Barratt alone build compared to developers of 1-100 unit schemes (that's 1-100 unit schemes, not 1-10 unit schemes!). This link may also help HIAG get his head around the facts. http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/facts-statistics/ 107,820 homes were completed in the UK in 2012-13 (or 108,190 depending on which completed figure you use as there are two in the link). The top ten house builders delivered 48,773 of them which equates to 45%. That's 10 development groups with just under half the market share and the top ten doesn't include the likes of McCarthy & Stone, Miller, Morris, Crest Nicholson, Countryside, Fairview, Kier, Galliard, Ballymore who all deliver hundreds of units every year. Those are the facts although I suspect HIAG will argue that the rest of the house builders only account for 4% market share and the other 51% is the 1-10 unit developers! In anticipation of that, just a reminder that developers of 1-100 unit schemes (that's 1-100 unit schemes, not 1-10 unit schemes) currently account for around 18,000 units per annum. There were 141,000 units delivered last year so the market share of the 1-100 unit scheme developers was c.13%. Even if HIAG had been referring to developers of 1-100 unit schemes, and he wasn't he was referring to developers of 1-10 unit schemes, then I don't think 13% can be considered the "bulk". https://www.gov.uk/government/news/100-million-boost-for-small-housebuilders
That number was woefully short of the numbers that the Government needed to get the new-build house market back on its proper rails. What was its solution? In 2014, by the time that the stats you refer to were being published, the Government scraped the section 106 requirement that forced developers of 1-10 houses to make a contribution towards social housing. Why did it do that? Because the Government recognised that without the significant input of the smaller-medium-sized developer the housing market was doomed. It took a drastic measure - namely, that of implementing a policy that did not have the backing of the Legislature - to try to resolve the situation. All you do, Schteeve, in your increasingly desperate attempts to try to belittle me, is to make yourself look like an even greater bell-end.
I agree with all of your post. Apart from the last line. So you accept that your statement was nonsense and the 1-10 unit developers don't actually account for the bulk of houses delivered? I've presented the facts but somehow I suspect that your incapable of admitting that you're wrong, possibly because you're an expert. When you made the statement that s106 had been scrapped we were talking about a huge scheme on the WHL site not on a small scheme. That's a fact.
Well, that's a start. No, I do not accept that. In fact, the "facts" that you presented make my point for me! By the end of 2013, the Government could see that the only real house-building being carried out was by the large house-builders, but it was recognised that they simply could not build enough houses - no where near enough. That is the very reason why the Government was prepared to do something that it does not do often or lightly, which is to introduce a policy-change before getting it sanctioned by the Legislature. Is any of this registering with you, at all? Because, it really isn't that difficult to follow! Again, is there really any need for this? Yes, and I was making the comment within the context of a wind-up, using shorthand terminology. If I had known that you - someone with an OCD-driven vendetta - would get so wound up about it, I would have either not have made the comment, or I would have chosen my words more carefully. However, please, let me suggest that within the context of this site and what its purpose is for, that would have, perhaps, been a little bit of an over-kill? To use that as an excuse to go on the rampage of hate and obnoxiousness that you have done is quite extraordinary, I think.
You called it Piskie. He didn't make that incorrect statement on purpose, it was all part of a wind up!
Calamity Courtois at it again. Parried the ball back into the danger zone for the first goal and the penalty was just stupidity. Apparently he commands his box well though. A draw is no disaster. Pre-season doesn't count for anything, the games are just glorified training matches.
I haven't seen the game yet but it sounds like Chelsea were lucky to scrape a point at home today. No Calamity Courtois for the City game either and so it's Begovic between the sticks. Could be a rout ....
Begovic looked better than Courtois who is still an accident waiting to happen. Fabregas is clearly still on holiday.
Neither are as good as Cech. I know it will sound like complete bias, but Fabregas simply hasn't been the same player since he left Arsenal. He never really got going in the same way at Barca and whilst the first half of last season at Chelsea he looked decent enough, he's not reached the same standards as when he was at Arsenal. He was on a really sharp upwards curve under Wenger, and now he just looks like never going to progress under Mourinho at Cheslea.
Mourinho expects him to defend far more than is natural for him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him dropped for Zouma. Matic and Zouma would be a classic Mourinho midfield.
