Dawlish News
"The project could be delayed as the land necessary has to be negotiated with landowners. But the cabinet heard that one of the five owners of the site have told the district council they no longer wish to sell for development." Which one of the owners would that be then? Article says it is the land known as Area 3.
@Cassandra - yes I know. But that doesn't mean there isn't any demand for them - which is the point I am trying to make about the housing that gets built not necessarily being the housing that is needed/wanted. @FredBassett - not sure how local people can be defined as living in Bristol and Birmingham. Here's an extract from the newspaper article referred to in the first post on this ...
So what is needed then is the right type of homes, the right number of homes, in the right place(s) and at a truly affordable cost. Which is precisely what we won't get under the present home building system. Also, we need incentives for those who are underoccupying their homes to move to smaller properties. Howzabout a stamp duty holiday for those aged, say, 55plus who are looking to ...
And oh wouldn't it be such a delicious irony if the value (quite literally) of the ransom strip was effectively wiped out by this recently approved housing scheme going ahead (being built by Templar Homebuild Ltd I believe) and achieving access from a different aspect (albeit at the cost of a 300 year old oak tree.)
And a quick online search reveals the following: Broseley was sold to Trafalgar House in 1987 and integrated into Ideal Homes. Ideal Homes was sold to Persimmon in 1996. Ergo.......?
That presupposes that there is alternative land available. On the subject of who it is who owns the ransom land. I found this . So it seems it is not an individual who owns the ransom land but a developer. Who took over Broseley? Find that out and it seems we might find out who owns the ransom land. ‘We had hoped to access the site from Parkers Road, where there is already an access ...
True - whoever owns the land can sell it or not (although they do not necessarily have the right to do with it whatever they want). But by not selling it, or not being agreeable to selling it at a reasonable price, then the consequence is that the only other way to access the land in question is to cut down a 300 year old tree. So some might well say that the tree having to be cut down is as ...
I've just been reading the report on Devonlive about this Starcross oak tree issue. At the bottom of the article are several comments. Here is one of them: "So a self serving landowner would prefer to see a 300 year old tree cut down rather than permit access through their land? Or are they open to access but at an opportunistic greed price? This is an unacceptable loss due to one ...
From what I've read it seems the council's hand was forced on this issue in Starcross because the only other way of accessing this site was by way of land owned by someone else. What is known as Ransom Land. So......the tree at Starcross is needing be felled either because the owner of the Ransom Land does not wish to sell or wishes to sell but only at some ridiculously extortionate price. So ...
Local government throughout the country, irrespective of which political party (or group of Independent councillors) is in power, has been subject to continual cuts from central government funding for years now. I've just done a quick online search and found this. By 2020, local authorities will have faced a reduction to core funding from the Government of nearly £16 billion over the ...
