Tag
Austria
Belgio
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cechia
Croatia
Croazia
Czech
Czechia
Czech Republic
Danimarca
Denmark
Estonia
Europa
Europe
France
Francia
Germania
Germany
Grecia
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Irlanda
Polonia
Polska
Portogallo
Portugal
Regno Unito
Repubblica Ceca
Repubblica di Turchia
Romania
Serbia
Slovacchia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Svezia
Sweden
Turchia
Turkey
Ucraina
Ucraino
Ukraine
Ungheria
United Kingdom

6 commenti
It’s an indicative price, as it’s required as part of the planning process and with all negotiations you start high.
Once planning is approved the actually negotiations will take place between the developer and the local authority to agree the Part V agreement and make sure that the net monetary value (NMV) is achieved.
[removed]
The requirements for social housing are ridiculous. Developers should be allowed to sell everything on the private market, social housing raises the prices for the other houses in the development sold privately. Quality as a result is reduced as the social house is now the baseline so costs must be cut. As well as ultimately reducing the value of the private houses down the line due to social housing and their tenants being within the same development. Not to mention people competing with the state and their own taxes for these houses. Ridiculous rules, no freeloader should be able to live in a social house that is worth a high monetary value.
This kind of bullshit is what had us in the mess were in
The idea that we are putting social housing tenants in 1m quid homes is laughable. The government could get 2-3x as many units somewhere cheaper. Joke and waste of taxpayer money. Government needs to be building cheap dense social housing directly in suburban locations.
I wonder how planning even got approved for building social housing on the most expensive area in the country? Couldn’t these homes be built somewhere else cheaper?