Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

bert
Super Contributor
Posts: 328
Joined: 31 Jul 2008 17:37

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by bert »

Are they allowed to get planning permission based on them having 97 affordable homes, then just later change their mind to have zero affordable homes?
GaryyHill
Super Contributor
Posts: 198
Joined: 08 Jul 2017 20:39

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by GaryyHill »

If you pay the right people in the council or give gifts I sure it's possible.
Youd be surprised how many gifts are sent to MPs and people in the Council which are not declared! Forget the Russians, British council workers are corrupt
User avatar
OLDMAN
Moderator
Posts: 22061
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 09:03

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by OLDMAN »

Think again - I know nearly all those on the RBC planning committee and can safely say they don’t get surreptitious gifts etc

Be careful what you say please as that is slanderous supposition
Oldman........

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they annoyed me........................

I hug everybody –
It’s not affection, I’m just measuring up how big a hole I need to dig for the body!
User avatar
OLDMAN
Moderator
Posts: 22061
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 09:03

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by OLDMAN »

bert wrote: 22 Jul 2020 20:36 Are they allowed to get planning permission based on them having 97 affordable homes, then just later change their mind to have zero affordable homes?
I think this is a revised 'application' as can't find anything that says its been approved
Oldman........

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they annoyed me........................

I hug everybody –
It’s not affection, I’m just measuring up how big a hole I need to dig for the body!
dave m
Super Contributor
Posts: 4651
Joined: 21 Feb 2012 11:21

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by dave m »

OLDMAN wrote: 23 Jul 2020 07:07 Think again - I know nearly all those on the RBC planning committee and can safely say they don’t get surreptitious gifts etc

Be careful what you say please as that is slanderous supposition
Actually- it's libellous - not slanderous.
And the forum moderators are also liable
KeithW
Super Contributor
Posts: 2094
Joined: 27 Jan 2019 15:29

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by KeithW »

dave m wrote: 23 Jul 2020 10:37
OLDMAN wrote: 23 Jul 2020 07:07 Think again - I know nearly all those on the RBC planning committee and can safely say they don’t get surreptitious gifts etc

Be careful what you say please as that is slanderous supposition
Actually- it's libellous - not slanderous.
And the forum moderators are also liable
I think to be libelled you'd have to be named, or at least identifiable.
Fed-up
Super Contributor
Posts: 5286
Joined: 05 Jun 2013 12:28

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by Fed-up »

Plans have now been approved for 620 homes - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... e-60947114
"Every place that I have been leaves its message on my skin. So many prophecies, so many signs, so little time, so little time" - Alan Prosser/Ian Telfer
Stargazer
Super Contributor
Posts: 165
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 15:23

Re: Royal Mail Site - 1000 New Flats

Post by Stargazer »

KeithW wrote: 22 Jul 2020 16:44 "Oh dear, these extra offices aren't doing very well! What on earth could we possibly do?"
Quite. the possible conversion of unwanted office space to low-grade residential accommodation (with no contribution required towards infrastructure) was mentioned in our community association's objection to the development.

In the end it seemed to be a bit of a foregone conclusion. I did manage to stand up at the planning committee and raise several objections on behalf of our nearby community (for starters, the huge density means it's hardly going to be a pleasant place to live, and who would want to live in the town houses with flats one side and the railway embankment on the other?) but it was like Billy No-Mates talking to a brick wall. To me a development at about half the proposed density would have been more appropriate (and more consistent with the Local Plan), but no one else seemed interested. My impression is that the developers have no doubt ticked all the necessary boxes as far as the planning system is concerned (regardless of the quality of the development) and councillors are reluctant to refuse anything that isn't blatantly dreadful, particularly after the council's recent unsuccessful defence of the appeal against refusal of the nearby SSE site plans.
Post Reply

Return to “Property developments in Reading”