General Discussion
The new link road should have been paid for out of the pockets of the developer's who are the only one's who will profit from the homes that will now be built.
I blame the planning department who should have enforced that the planning approval for the new homes would only be signed off once the link road had been constructed by and/or on behalf of the developer's using their own money.
As it seems we have a government who bends over backwards to throw our money away.
What on earth do we need ANOTHER thousand homes being built in Dawlish for? Another thousand homes built, but no extra infrastructure. The sewers in this location cannot cope with the new builds already built.
You cannot just build thousands of new homes and not add proportionate extra infrastructure.
The only thing our council's seems interested in, in my opinion, is clearing area's of farmland to turn into lack lustre country parks, build duplicate childrens play parks and construct expensive cycle paths hardly anyone bothers with.
Who says the developers will not pay? If you read the Infrastructure Fund document it clearly states that Council's are given the money and they don't have to pay it back to the government. The money becomes TDCs and they can pay for the bridge and the road in Area 3, which is not to say they will not claim the whole lot back once the development is built. The Government points out that every pound reclaimed can be used on further projects by the council. See below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/625520/HIF_Marginal_Viability_supporting_document_accessible.pdf
Housing Infrastructure Fund - Supporting Document for Marginal Viability
2. Requires grant funding Bidders will need to demonstrate that the schemes cannot happen without the financial support of this Fund but would still offer a net benefit to society. This means we require evidence of a demonstrable market failure and that developers, or others, are not able to pay for the infrastructure themselves. Demonstrating that grant funding is required also applies if the land is publicly owned. A market failure could be caused by a range of reasons. Bids will need to set out who would benefit from the infrastructure, who will be paying towards it, why those benefiting cannot pay the full costs upfront, and what has changed since the land was purchased. The amount of any funding award will take account of predicted cash flows for the schemes, expected developer contributions and the size of grant needed. In certain circumstances, we may ask developers to open their books to us, before any funding is awarded. This Fund is not to be used when developers, or others, are able to pay for the infrastructure themselves. Nor is it to be used to bail out developers who have simply overpaid for land. If a local authority is able to make efficiency savings or recover funding from developers and delivery partners in subsequent years, then this money can be retained and recycled in order to help them to achieve more housing delivery in the future. In return, if there are any cost increases, then the local authority, and their delivery partners, will be expected to find other sources of funding to meet such costs, rather than additional grant being provided through this Fund. Please see Annex 2 on page 18 for technical guidance on demonstrating market failure.
I will be devil's advocate here: TDC might have won the bid however, there appears to be certain hoops to jump through and time constraints if you read the rest of the document. If the developers state it is the cost of bringing the site foward that is stopping development, then it is the profit margin that makes it not viable. This will not change if TDC do not reduce the S106 and demand the whole loan from the Government back so they can recycle it. It is the same as someone that can only buy a car if someone pays their deposit and doesn't ask for it back, factor in having to pay the deposit in full then it becomes unaffordable again. What do others make of it after reading the document, link provided?
Thank you Lynne for making the link easier for others. I just wanted to point out that the deal is not done and dusted as the Council are trying to portray, they have to go back to the landowners/developers and broker a deal which makes the sites viable. You can see that there are issues on viability since Langdon is still for sale on KLP Planning's website. This site was offered just after it got planning and initially was sale agreed, but the people pulled out and it has had no interest since, which shows there is something wrong and the figures do not stack up for developers. Hopefully now Cllr Wrigley is now at TDC he will get involved and try and get the best for Dawlish and bring common sense which appears lacking recently.