BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

Pooneil wrote: 17 May 2019 18:22
Tommy wrote: 17 May 2019 17:29
Pooneil wrote: 17 May 2019 12:45
Tommy wrote: 17 May 2019 08:00The main problem is too many people.
Because we demand a growing economy, which means more workers. And because we have a growing older population, which means we need more people to look after them, and more people working and paying taxes to pay their pensions. And that's not blaming older people for living longer, it's just a simple fact. We have promised these people pensions for life, and so we have to take in more tax to pay for it, which means we need more tax - which we can either do by having more and more people employed, or by taxing me and thee more.
Let's not forget though that pensioners do pay tax on their pensions.
Not usually on their state pensions. Basic state pension from this April is £6,718.40 for a single person and £10,745.80 for a married couple. Standard personal allowance for income tax from April 2019 is £12,500 per person.
But they pay tax on their private pensions.

I'd rather 'have a go' and those who don't work, have kids, get given a house, get benefits etc than older people, who claim a state pension and many of which also have a private pension they pay tax on.
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

Pooneil wrote: 17 May 2019 18:18
Tommy wrote: 17 May 2019 17:30
Jude wrote: 17 May 2019 14:46
Pooneil wrote: 17 May 2019 12:45We have promised these people pensions for life, and so we have to take in more tax to pay for it, which means we need more tax - which we can either do by having more and more people employed, or by taxing me and thee more.
Or the individuals and corporations who currently dodge paying, legally or illegally.
Lorraine Kelly. How the hell did she get away with that tax dodging?
Having read the actual details of the case from a tax law point of view, she actually had a pretty good case. The tabloid simplification that she avoided tax because she appears as a character rather than her actual self was a gross simplification. (Blimey, Fleet Street over-simplifying a story and thus creating uproar - that almost never happens ;-) )
She exploited a loophole. Of which I don't agree with.
Pooneil
Moderator
Posts: 8134
Joined: 10 May 2011 00:57

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Pooneil »

Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 08:27
Pooneil wrote: 17 May 2019 18:18
Tommy wrote: 17 May 2019 17:30
Jude wrote: 17 May 2019 14:46
Or the individuals and corporations who currently dodge paying, legally or illegally.
Lorraine Kelly. How the hell did she get away with that tax dodging?
Having read the actual details of the case from a tax law point of view, she actually had a pretty good case. The tabloid simplification that she avoided tax because she appears as a character rather than her actual self was a gross simplification. (Blimey, Fleet Street over-simplifying a story and thus creating uproar - that almost never happens ;-) )
She exploited a loophole. Of which I don't agree with.
At the risk of going off-topic, which loophole was that?
Whilst I am a moderator, I am NOT posting in that capacity unless I explicitly say so
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 10:10
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 08:27
Pooneil wrote: 17 May 2019 18:18
Tommy wrote: 17 May 2019 17:30

Lorraine Kelly. How the hell did she get away with that tax dodging?
Having read the actual details of the case from a tax law point of view, she actually had a pretty good case. The tabloid simplification that she avoided tax because she appears as a character rather than her actual self was a gross simplification. (Blimey, Fleet Street over-simplifying a story and thus creating uproar - that almost never happens ;-) )
She exploited a loophole. Of which I don't agree with.
At the risk of going off-topic, which loophole was that?
That allowed her to not paying the amount of tax she should have. By saying she's putting on an act.
Jude
Super Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: 23 Oct 2015 16:50

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Jude »

Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 08:23I'd rather 'have a go' and those who don't work, have kids, get given a house, get benefits etc than older people, who claim a state pension and many of which also have a private pension they pay tax on.
I'd rather 'have a go' at those already very wealthy individuals at the top of the ladder, and also the corporations, who are cheating us out of far more money than those at the bottom.

Saw some figures once which stated the overall benefits bill is actually minuscule compared to most other things.

Also the robber barons in 'control' at the moment, stripping the country of all its assets at seemingly a faster pace than in the Thatcher years, presumably because they can, but also before those who care stop them. And going mostly unreported. See NHS for instance.

Generally its better not to bite the bait offered by the mainstream tabloids.

Beware of divide and rule. We have much more in common with each other - all over the world - than those at the top - all over the world.
Pooneil
Moderator
Posts: 8134
Joined: 10 May 2011 00:57

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Pooneil »

Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 11:03
Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 10:10
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 08:27
Pooneil wrote: 17 May 2019 18:18 Having read the actual details of the case from a tax law point of view, she actually had a pretty good case. The tabloid simplification that she avoided tax because she appears as a character rather than her actual self was a gross simplification. (Blimey, Fleet Street over-simplifying a story and thus creating uproar - that almost never happens ;-) )
She exploited a loophole. Of which I don't agree with.
At the risk of going off-topic, which loophole was that?
That allowed her to not paying the amount of tax she should have. By saying she's putting on an act.
So you think that she should have paid the full rate of income tax on the money that she was paid by ITV?
Whilst I am a moderator, I am NOT posting in that capacity unless I explicitly say so
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

Jude wrote: 18 May 2019 11:11
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 08:23I'd rather 'have a go' and those who don't work, have kids, get given a house, get benefits etc than older people, who claim a state pension and many of which also have a private pension they pay tax on.
I'd rather 'have a go' at those already very wealthy individuals at the top of the ladder, and also the corporations, who are cheating us out of far more money than those at the bottom.

Saw some figures once which stated the overall benefits bill is actually minuscule compared to most other things.

Also the robber barons in 'control' at the moment, stripping the country of all its assets at seemingly a faster pace than in the Thatcher years, presumably because they can, but also before those who care stop them. And going mostly unreported. See NHS for instance.

Generally its better not to bite the bait offered by the mainstream tabloids.

Beware of divide and rule. We have much more in common with each other - all over the world - than those at the top - all over the world.
There is that too - the top of the pile. Although if they do employ a lot of people then I don't see why some sort of balance can't be struck. We don't want to scare them all off.....

However, I still think these awkward questions need to be asked to those on benefits. Why was this girl and her son obese if she can barely feed them. How come she had her arms covered in tattoo's, had piercings, her nails immaculate and she had a smart phone, probably on contract too......It's not just this one case, it quite often crops up on the news and many of them fit into this 'stereotype'.

If we start looking after the pennies........
KeithW
Super Contributor
Posts: 2094
Joined: 27 Jan 2019 15:29

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by KeithW »

Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 12:04
Why was this girl and her son obese if she can barely feed them. How come she had her arms covered in tattoo's, had piercings, her nails immaculate and she had a smart phone, probably on contract too......It's not just this one case, it quite often crops up on the news and many of them fit into this 'stereotype'.
Follow the money. Who owns this 'news' and why would they want to point the finger elsewhere?

Fifty percent of this country is owned by one percent.
User avatar
OneGorman
Super Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: 17 Dec 2017 21:59

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by OneGorman »

Actually the mainstream media the world over is owned by just 5 Corporations. The media has always been a tool to manipulate and control the masses. I can’t tell you the last time I bought a newspaper or watched the national news. I get my news from trusted sources I’ve researched over the years.
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

KeithW wrote: 18 May 2019 12:52
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 12:04
Why was this girl and her son obese if she can barely feed them. How come she had her arms covered in tattoo's, had piercings, her nails immaculate and she had a smart phone, probably on contract too......It's not just this one case, it quite often crops up on the news and many of them fit into this 'stereotype'.
Follow the money. Who owns this 'news' and why would they want to point the finger elsewhere?

Fifty percent of this country is owned by one percent.
But you often hear stories on the news of large corporations not paying enough tax. And I agree with that too. Amazon could and should pay more. But on the flip side, think of all the couriers that are employed because of the likes of them.

We need to get a fairer share of tax paid but also, if someone is on benefits and has all the luxuries I mention etc, surely they get too much in the way of benefits? (I personally know someone similar to this - given a house, tattoo's, iphone, gets to go out now and again, parents comfortable, they know how to work the system to get as much as they can).
ReadingT
Super Contributor
Posts: 1049
Joined: 18 Nov 2011 20:01

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by ReadingT »

Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 11:45
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 11:03
Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 10:10
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 08:27

She exploited a loophole. Of which I don't agree with.
At the risk of going off-topic, which loophole was that?
That allowed her to not paying the amount of tax she should have. By saying she's putting on an act.
So you think that she should have paid the full rate of income tax on the money that she was paid by ITV?
Yes.
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

Napier Road Tesco's will have to police their car park more. Otherwise those residents will use it as their parking space.
Pooneil
Moderator
Posts: 8134
Joined: 10 May 2011 00:57

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Pooneil »

ReadingT wrote: 13 Jun 2019 22:18
Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 11:45
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 11:03
Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 10:10 At the risk of going off-topic, which loophole was that?
That allowed her to not paying the amount of tax she should have. By saying she's putting on an act.
So you think that she should have paid the full rate of income tax on the money that she was paid by ITV?
Yes.
That demonstrates that you haven't grasped the full details of the case.
Whilst I am a moderator, I am NOT posting in that capacity unless I explicitly say so
spectrum64
Super Contributor
Posts: 612
Joined: 22 Mar 2014 13:47

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by spectrum64 »

That demonstrates that you haven't grasped the full details of the case.
It's a person able to finance lawyers to argue a case that would not be available to less wealthy individuals. The fact that it has been so widely reported and commented on demonstrates that a lot of people find it quite dubious.

What details did you have in mind?
User avatar
OneGorman
Super Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: 17 Dec 2017 21:59

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by OneGorman »

This is shooting up. Looks very big depth wise. Looking forward to it expanding upwards and ultimately topping out.
Mayfield
Moderator
Posts: 14161
Joined: 15 Nov 2007 18:50

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Mayfield »

spectrum64 wrote: 15 Jun 2019 09:54
That demonstrates that you haven't grasped the full details of the case.
It's a person able to finance lawyers to argue a case that would not be available to less wealthy individuals. The fact that it has been so widely reported and commented on demonstrates that a lot of people find it quite dubious.

What details did you have in mind?
I suspect the advice was founded in case law which means there was a previously a similar case which went the way that suited her....

In any case I get a nasty crick in my neck looking at Swan Heights and there's no way I would want me or mine to live there...fire platforms aren't that high...and that's pretty much my marker...
Pooneil
Moderator
Posts: 8134
Joined: 10 May 2011 00:57

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Pooneil »

spectrum64 wrote: 15 Jun 2019 09:54
That demonstrates that you haven't grasped the full details of the case.
It's a person able to finance lawyers to argue a case that would not be available to less wealthy individuals. The fact that it has been so widely reported and commented on demonstrates that a lot of people find it quite dubious.

What details did you have in mind?
Before 2000, when IR35 was introduced, workers who owned their own limited companies were allowed to receive payments from clients direct to the company and to use the company revenue as would any small company. Company profits could be distributed as dividends, which are not subject to National Insurance payments. Workers could also save tax by splitting ownership of the company with family members in order to place income in lower tax bands.
In 1999, as part of that year’s Budget, the Chancellor Gordon Brown, announced that measures would be introduced to counter tax avoidance by the use of so-called "personal service companies". Formally known as the "Intermediaries Legislation", it is more commonly referred to by the consecutively numbered Inland Revenue budget press release number 35 in which it was announced (i.e. the 35th Inland Revenue news release of that budget), titled Countering Avoidance in the Provision of Personal Services.
IR35 is anti-avoidance tax legislation designed to tax disguised employment at a rate similar to employment. In this context, "disguised employees" means workers who receive payments from a client via an intermediary, for example, their own limited company, and whose relationship with their client is such that had they been paid directly they would be employees of the client.

It was HMRC’s contention that Lorraine Kelly was caught by such legislation and that the provision of her services through Albatel Ltd (a company she and her husband set up in 1992) was in fact “disguised employment”.

The crux of the case was , was she really in effect an employee of ITV, in which case HMRC were assessing the contract between ITV and Albatel as all income to her, subject to tax and NI, or was she not an employee and the contract was one for the provision of services, in which case the company was entitled to deduct certaiin business expenses, and the tax would only be due on payments made from Albatel to Kelly.

The contract between Albatel and ITV was signed in 2012, under which Kelly’s services would be provided for a 30-month period for the TV programme Lorraine, and for a shorter period for the programme Daybreak. In order to determine if IR35 applied the judge had to examine whether a hypothetical contract between Kelly and ITV had the attributes of an employment contract (in which IR35 would apply), or if it appeared to be a contract for services (a self-employed arrangement), in which case IR35 would not apply.

HMRC argued that ITV retained control over Kelly with regard to OFCOM obligations, and that it was the program editor who exercised that control. However, the tribunal found that OFCOM’s role as regulator was irrelevant to control in this context. Also, the editor’s control was misconceived; it was shown that there was minimal supervision or control over Kelly. Although in theory ITV had the right to edit the programme, in practice, with live television, it is impossible for a TV company to control the presenter. She is engaged because of her special expertise in running informative and fluent interviews which by their nature cannot be scripted or controlled. In evidence about her ‘Lorraine’ breakfast TV show, Kelly gave a number of examples of her independence from ITV - turning down an interview, for instance with Sir Elton John which required a live link from Australia at 4am. As she was filming for the BBC later in the day she chose not to do the interview, for her own convenience. Kelly also told the FTT (First Tier Tribunal) about an expedition to Antarctica she had made in February 2017 which was not for ITV but for a magazine and newspaper article and for which she was absent from the show for four weeks, in addition to the 10 weeks holiday specified in the contract. Kelly explained that she can work for any other broadcaster and recently filmed a documentary on penguins in South Africa for Channel 5.
ITV is under no obligation to pay Kelly if she is unable to present the show. Kelly is not provided with office space and explained that she carries out her preparation at home. In the hour that Ms Kelly is contracted to work she stated she had total control; any additional work related to the show is her choice.

Although the programme was aired throughout the year, Kelly was only required to provide her services for 42 weeks per year and she was instrumental in identifying substitute presenters for the periods she was absent. This is not a usual feature of employment contracts.
Kelly was not entitled to sick pay, holiday pay, employer pension entitlements, training or appraisals. The absence of all of these factors indicated that Kelly was not treated as an employee by ITV.
HMRC argued that Kelly could not increase the profits she made from providing services to ITV, she took no financial risk, and thus was not in business on her own account. The judge took the opposite view; Kelly bore a significant financial risk that programme could be pulled by ITV, or that sickness would prevent her from performing.
Kelly carried out a variety of work from writing to designing and advertising a fashion line, and she appeared on other television shows. She could not be considered to be part and parcel of ITV. The judge concluded that ITV was effectively buying the application of the Kelly brand.
In examining all of these factors together and making a qualitative assessment of the evidence, the judge concluded that the relationship between ITV and Kelly was a contract for services, and IR35 did not apply.

She’s not avoiding tax completely – she’ll have paid tax and national insurance on any earnings that Albatel paid here, and she’ll have paid tax on any dividends paid. And Albatel may well be liable to corporation tax on monies it has retained as profits and not paid out to Kelly.

The whole bit about Kelly being a performer rather than herself was actually a side issue, but naturally this was the item that the tabloids seized on. There was the question as to whether Albatel Ltd could deduct from its income the fees it paid to Kelly’s agent for negotiating the contract with ITV (under section 352 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003). A deduction for agency fees only applies if the earnings are from employment as an entertainer, so there was much discussion as to whether Kelly was treated as an “entertainer” in her work for ITV, which the tribunal decided she was. However, as the ITV contract fell outside of IR35, it was not an employment contract, and the question of the deduction of the agent’s fees didn’t strictly have to be resolved. In other words, whether she was treated as an entertainer or a person was completely irrelevant to the case, as it would only have had an effect if this had been adjudged to be an employment contract and subject to IR35 – which it wasn’t.
HMRC’s stance on this issue was that Kelly was a “current affairs journalist”, which is something of a stretch. The tribunal judge stated: ‘We were provided with numerous clips of Ms Kelly’s work which showed her dressing up for comedy sketches and features of shows such as the “bikini promise” with Ms Kelly drawing the distinction between her role in this type of programme and that of Jeremy Paxman in Newsnight.
‘Ms Kelly agreed that “Daybreak” was not classified as entertainment but stated that her role on the show was that of an entertainer with features of dressing up and doing sketches with Aled Jones. Ms Kelly stated that she viewed the term “theatrical artist” widely and that she acted everyday as a version of herself.
The judge concluded: ‘We did not accept that Ms Kelly simply appeared as herself; we were satisfied that Ms Kelly presents a persona of herself; she presents herself as a brand, and that is the brand ITV sought when engaging her.’

It might be worth comparing this with the case HMRC brought against former BBC Look North presenter Christa Ackroyd last year. In July 2013, it was revealed that HM Revenue and Customs had started an investigation into Christa Ackroyd's tax arrangements, whilst employed by the BBC. Under an agreement with the BBC, Ackroyd was employed via what became known as a Personal Service Company Contract, Christa Ackroyd Media Limited, through which her remuneration was paid, whist still being herself directly contracted to the BBC. In February 2018, the First Tier Tribunal confirmed that Ackroyd for the tax years covering 2006–07 to 2012–13, owed income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) amounting to £419,151.
It was the first IR35 case that HMRC had won in seven years. (They lost another four in 2018 after the Ackroyd case, and this one this year.).
The difference between the Kelly and Ackroyd cases, according to Lorraine Kelly's counsel, was that ITV has no right to tell her or Albatel what to do, whereas the BBC could direct Christine Ackroyd to present any programme of their choice."

The judge was quite clear in the judgement: "we do not consider this a borderline case" was one comment in the judgement.
Whilst I am a moderator, I am NOT posting in that capacity unless I explicitly say so
ReadingT
Super Contributor
Posts: 1049
Joined: 18 Nov 2011 20:01

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by ReadingT »

Pooneil wrote: 14 Jun 2019 13:32
ReadingT wrote: 13 Jun 2019 22:18
Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 11:45
Tommy wrote: 18 May 2019 11:03

That allowed her to not paying the amount of tax she should have. By saying she's putting on an act.
So you think that she should have paid the full rate of income tax on the money that she was paid by ITV?
Yes.
That demonstrates that you haven't grasped the full details of the case.
That demonstrates that you are attempting to offend by being condescending and failing miserably.

She should pay tax on the money that she, personally, earnt. Any other argument is devious and sneaky.
Pooneil
Moderator
Posts: 8134
Joined: 10 May 2011 00:57

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Pooneil »

The simple fact is that the Revenue attempoted to tax her as if she were an employee of ITV. The facts were clear that she was not an employee of ITV, but providing a service to ITV. She will be taxed fairly in accordance with the money she earns or receives as income; that has never been in contention, nor have I advocated that she shouldn't. The simple fact is that the way HMRC attempted to tax her was contrary to the law and the facts. If ITV had a plumber round to their studios, even if they had them round every week, they almost certainly be viewed as their employee.
And the whole sideshow as to whether she is "herself" or "an act" is completely irrelevant to the case.
Whilst I am a moderator, I am NOT posting in that capacity unless I explicitly say so
Mayfield
Moderator
Posts: 14161
Joined: 15 Nov 2007 18:50

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Mayfield »

ReadingT wrote: 18 Jun 2019 17:58
Pooneil wrote: 14 Jun 2019 13:32
ReadingT wrote: 13 Jun 2019 22:18
Pooneil wrote: 18 May 2019 11:45 So you think that she should have paid the full rate of income tax on the money that she was paid by ITV?
Yes.
That demonstrates that you haven't grasped the full details of the case.
That demonstrates that you are attempting to offend by being condescending and failing miserably.

She should pay tax on the money that she, personally, earnt. Any other argument is devious and sneaky.
She IS paying the full amount she owes.....there are other ways of being taxed other than PAYE and they are quite correct....
User avatar
MickEdge
Super Contributor
Posts: 2247
Joined: 08 Jul 2015 14:54

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by MickEdge »

This seems to be a case of playing the man or in this case the woman and not the ball. The ball being a very complex set of laws that govern how HMRC are allowed to collect taxes. We are all allowed to arrange our income and capital how we like, as long as it is within those laws. It’s no more wrong to set yourself up as company than it is to put money in an ISA. It may be unfair to those who can’t take advantage of all the ways of reducing your tax, but it’s not immoral.
ReadingT
Super Contributor
Posts: 1049
Joined: 18 Nov 2011 20:01

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by ReadingT »

It’s entirely immoral.
cnb
Super Contributor
Posts: 2358
Joined: 01 Aug 2007 15:42

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by cnb »

ReadingT wrote: 04 Jul 2019 21:00 It’s entirely immoral.
If it's immoral to start small businesses rather than be an employee of a big business, how do those big businesses ever come into being in a morally acceptable way?
User avatar
OLDMAN
Moderator
Posts: 22056
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 09:03

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by OLDMAN »

:offtopic1: Any updates on this BUILDING? :whistle1:
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
OneGorman
Super Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: 17 Dec 2017 21:59

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by OneGorman »

The spine looks to have topped out. The structure of the main building looks to be at around 4 floors so far? It’s quite extensive. I’ll try and get a photo later if I get caught in traffic. You can see when finished it’s going to be quite dominant.
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

OneGorman wrote: 05 Jul 2019 09:42 if I get caught in traffic.
LOL
buseng
Super Contributor
Posts: 6694
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 16:51

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by buseng »

OneGorman wrote: 05 Jul 2019 09:42 The spine looks to have topped out. The structure of the main building looks to be at around 4 floors so far? It’s quite extensive. I’ll try and get a photo later if I get caught in traffic. You can see when finished it’s going to be quite dominant.
"If" simply read that as "when".
User avatar
OneGorman
Super Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: 17 Dec 2017 21:59

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by OneGorman »

Tommy wrote: 05 Jul 2019 10:10
OneGorman wrote: 05 Jul 2019 09:42 if I get caught in traffic.
LOL
You jest, but I didn’t catch any today when dropping off the step kids off of Vasten Road at 16:00. So couldn’t get any shots but the build is now up to the 7th Floor.
Mayfield
Moderator
Posts: 14161
Joined: 15 Nov 2007 18:50

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Mayfield »

I'm in that area tomorrow, I'll see what I can do....

I wouldn't live in the high bit for a kings ransome...good job we're all different....
User avatar
OneGorman
Super Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: 17 Dec 2017 21:59

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by OneGorman »

Got stuck in a little traffic this time, so here you go. Still up to Floor 7, but there's a lot to do per floor.

Image

Image
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

There was a fire in a flat on Kennet Island last week. The sign of things to come in Reading. I hope we've recruited extra fire fighters for the area. Oh and rat catchers. Flats are notoriously bad for attracting rats.
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

OneGorman wrote: 12 Jul 2019 18:27



Image
Where's the cycle lane along there? Oh, the council forget to put any in.
dave m
Super Contributor
Posts: 4651
Joined: 21 Feb 2012 11:21

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by dave m »

Given the massive pavements around there and few pedestrians, do you need one a few hundred yards from the tow path?
Tommy
Super Contributor
Posts: 2314
Joined: 03 Apr 2019 10:41

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by Tommy »

dave m wrote: 13 Jul 2019 11:36 Given the massive pavements around there and few pedestrians, do you need one a few hundred yards from the tow path?
Yep. RBC put in a huge bike parking rack. They also had ReadiBike at the time. They failed miserably and forgot to put any cycle lanes in. I say forgot because it couldn't have been a conscious decision in this day and age of getting everyone out of their cars......

Plus not all cyclist come from the tow path direction.
User avatar
OneGorman
Super Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: 17 Dec 2017 21:59

Re: BMW Site/Swan Heights (Napier Road)

Post by OneGorman »

You can’t have cycle lanes everywhere though! You have the road, and new laws about drivers having to give you more room. I suggest you put more energy into wearing a helmet and head can and reporting drivers who pass you in a dangerous manner; as opposed to whining about bike lanes.
Post Reply

Return to “Property developments in Reading”