|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 9, 2024 9:00:33 GMT
Debenhams store had 6 toilets. Very few people do number twos while shopping (Go figure) There was discussion of what to do with the growing number of closed stores in town centres as there was little demand for retail and much demand for housing. Debenhams in Oxford street was considered. After this was dismissed it remained empty ever since. I'm not stating every Debenham store, I said many brown field sites are unsuitable for housing for various reasons and used A Debenham store as an example. you then stated(without investigation or any clue) that putting a sewer through a town was cheaper than builds a block of flats. Again I gave you and example of costs (Why don't you look up some examples before stating I'm wrong.) save me doing it for you. Further you then assume my example was a sewer for the Debenhams on the other side of Cambridge, without ever questioning whether you might have got that wrong. TBH Dappy I don't know why but you never seem to be able to get the whole picture and always come across as inquisitorial, . You state things like this, "Honestly I would have thought sewage need would be higher for that use especially during daytime peak demand in that area than for resi use." without any investigation or thought as if they are well known facts. So I'll leave you to your opinions. Not opinions Zany - facts. OK They are turning Debenhams Oxford street back into retail, how does that make it OK to be housing. You just can't look at the bigger picture can you, yes the Oxford street sewage scheme is happening now, but it wasn't then. And no builder was going to pay for it. And ofcourse Oxford street sewage is busiest during the day its a retail area, there's hardly anyone there at night. That doesn't change the fact that it could handle a 1,000 people doing their laundry, bathing, using their dishwashers and using the toilets. Why don't you link it so I can see what you've read. Does it say why they decided to make it retail and offices instead of much needed accommodation? Historic pollution is the one that makes the news. Planning is often the issue with planning offices insisting on designs that are not profitable and daft vague statements such as 'The scheme does not chime with the rhythm of the street.' I would say council/planning office conditions are the biggest blocker. My own company has struggled with things like a remote business park on an old farm that must not be used at weekends because its in the countryside. More buildings standing empty for years. Anyway. Assuming my property developer friend is wrong, perhaps you might give your opinion on why so many brown field sites remain unused while builders are paying 500k an acre around Cambridge. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 9, 2024 9:08:40 GMT
You are in favour of Labour's plan which involves building on scrub land Did you even read the details of their plan before saying it sounds good..? You trying to turn my claim back on me ("I'm sure you would vote against anything a politician says because you don't like them") is risible and fairly childish. I have never said I was in favour of Labours plan for building on scrubland. Indeed I found their example of a petrol station in the green belt a ridiculous one because it wont touch the issue. I was unaware of Moggs plan, but I reiterate. "I would not. A good idea is a good idea whoever suggests it." A warning now. stop personal attacks. If this line had been aimed at any other member I would have deleted it already. Discuss the subject not the person. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 9, 2024 9:26:43 GMT
Not opinions Zany - facts. OK They are turning Debenhams Oxford street back into retail, how does that make it OK to be housing. You just can't look at the bigger picture can you, yes the Oxford street sewage scheme is happening now, but it wasn't then. And no builder was going to pay for it. And ofcourse Oxford street sewage is busiest during the day it’s a retail area, there's hardly anyone there at night. That doesn't change the fact that it could handle a 1,000 people doing their laundry, bathing, using their dishwashers and using the toilets. Why don't you link it so I can see what you've read. Does it say why they decided to make it retail and offices instead of much needed accommodation? Historic pollution is the one that makes the news. Planning is often the issue with planning offices insisting on designs that are not profitable and daft vague statements such as 'The scheme does not chime with the rhythm of the street.' I would say council/planning office conditions are the biggest blocker. My own company has struggled with things like a remote business park on an old farm that must not be used at weekends because its in the countryside. More buildings standing empty for years. Anyway. Assuming my property developer friend is wrong, perhaps you might give your opinion on why so many brown field sites remain unused while builders are paying 500k an acre around Cambridge. Zany. With respect this is becoming one of those weird conversations where when challenged you seem to become more aggressive and I think not making as much sense. Sewage constraints on development doesn’t seem a big issue and I really don’t want to fall out so I’ll make this my last post. I am typing on a mobile and don’t know frankly how to link articles but if you type in Debenhams Oxford Street into Google, it comes up about the eighth article down if you are interested. They are turning the building into retail leisure and offices as this is the owners opinion the most profitable use for the building. Nowhere is it suggested that it would have been used for resi if only sewage capacity was higher. Indeed as you have accepted sewage demand in that area is higher in the daytime than evening as will be sewage demand from the new development whereas sewage demand from resi is higher in evening than daytime. Do you see then that it is illogical to suggest that resi would not be allowed due to sewage capacity when offices are? I agree that there are many reasons why brownfield sites cannot be developed. In my experience historic pollution is the most common but by no means the only one. Sewage capacity issues are rare if not ever. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 9, 2024 9:31:36 GMT
Cool, the problem is that I was on the UK Politics Debate forum for many months so I think I have an idea. I've known several posters here for many years prior to that from elsewhere. But please continue - you're doing well, even though you said Lewis Hamilton's win was somehow attributable to the Starmer effect - but no tribalism  Clearly a joke. Which you would have understood if you weren't so keen to label us all as Starmerites. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than half of us voted Labour. I've never voted for or supported Labour in my life. I might be happy to see the back of the Tories but it doesn't mean I'm in Starmer's tribe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2024 13:41:33 GMT
You are in favour of Labour's plan which involves building on scrub land Did you even read the details of their plan before saying it sounds good..? You trying to turn my claim back on me ("I'm sure you would vote against anything a politician says because you don't like them") is risible and fairly childish. I have never said I was in favour of Labours plan for building on scrubland. Indeed I found their example of a petrol station in the green belt a ridiculous one because it wont touch the issue. I was unaware of Moggs plan, but I reiterate. "I would not. A good idea is a good idea whoever suggests it." A warning now. stop personal attacks. If this line had been aimed at any other member I would have deleted it already. Discuss the subject not the person. You expressed support for Labour's plan full stop in this thread earlier on.. Their ideas for developing on grey belt land are flawed and frankly will desecrate the green built which they are simply redesignating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2024 13:42:24 GMT
Cool, the problem is that I was on the UK Politics Debate forum for many months so I think I have an idea. I've known several posters here for many years prior to that from elsewhere. But please continue - you're doing well, even though you said Lewis Hamilton's win was somehow attributable to the Starmer effect - but no tribalism Clearly a joke. Which you would have understood if you weren't so keen to label us all as Starmerites. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than half of us voted Labour. I've never voted for or supported Labour in my life. I might be happy to see the back of the Tories but it doesn't mean I'm in Starmer's tribe. Oh sure, clearly a joke.. By the way, where did I designate you all as Starmerites? There are many right wingers on here who are obviously not, and many others who don't like Starmer (like RedRum for eg) so I'm not sure where you're getting that. The tribal part is true though for many |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 9, 2024 13:53:08 GMT
Clearly a joke. Which you would have understood if you weren't so keen to label us all as Starmerites. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than half of us voted Labour. I've never voted for or supported Labour in my life. I might be happy to see the back of the Tories but it doesn't mean I'm in Starmer's tribe. Oh sure, clearly a joke.. By the way, where did I designate you all as Starmerites? There are many right wingers on here who are obviously not, and many others who don't like Starmer (like RedRum for eg) so I'm not sure where you're getting that. The tribal part is true though for many Yes, a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 9, 2024 13:57:27 GMT
I have never said I was in favour of Labours plan for building on scrubland. Indeed I found their example of a petrol station in the green belt a ridiculous one because it wont touch the issue. I was unaware of Moggs plan, but I reiterate. "I would not. A good idea is a good idea whoever suggests it." A warning now. stop personal attacks. If this line had been aimed at any other member I would have deleted it already. Discuss the subject not the person. You expressed support for Labour's plan full stop in this thread earlier on. Their ideas for developing on grey belt land are flawed and frankly will desecrate the green built which they are simply redesignating. My full support on every nuance. Sure. Well I agree with getting rid of the greenbelt, it was a stupid idea in the first place. And its become even worse as its taken on a quality it wasn't supposed to have.  This was the original green belt, now its become any agricultural land. We need a million homes and they will take up 1% of agricultural land. That's fine with me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2024 14:15:53 GMT
"Well I agree with getting rid of the greenbelt,"
The public opposes you it seems, for once, I have to agree with many Tories that getting rid of the greenbelt is a disastrous policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 9, 2024 15:02:54 GMT
"Well I agree with getting rid of the greenbelt," The public opposes you it seems, for once, I have to agree with many Tories that getting rid of the greenbelt is a disastrous policy. Wonderful sentiment, But I didn't suggest we concrete the green belt. Merely that we build on 1% of it instead of pretending we can house the millions we invited to live here on brown field sites. We can of course save Joni Mitchell's dream by not inviting any more people to live here. But we are where we are now. So 1% of agricultural land, in fact no extra agricultural land as would stop filling in the green fields inside village envelopes. In the meantime, we have millions of people with nowhere to live and rent and mortgage rates trashing our economy. |
|
