Soldato
That'll be the idea. Then the board goes up and it has "Luxury 3, 4 & 5 bedroom properties" on it with a starting price of £250K. Any housing in the north east has been exactly this for too long.
MOD to sell 13 sites to provide 17000 homes
- Thread starter UTmaniac
- Start date
That'll be the idea. Then the board goes up and it has "Luxury 3, 4 & 5 bedroom properties" on it with a starting price of £250K. Any housing in the north east has been exactly this for too long.
Man of Honour
Certainly the Amport House site doesn't look like it'll have much affordable housing on it 
Ministry of Defence to sell 13 sites for 17,000 homes
If any do get built on these sites, then ex-service personnel should be first in the queue for them IMO.
Ministry of Defence to sell 13 sites for 17,000 homes
If any do get built on these sites, then ex-service personnel should be first in the queue for them IMO.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Certainly the Amport House site doesn't look like it'll have much affordable housing on it
Ministry of Defence to sell 13 sites for 17,000 homes
If any does get built on these sites, then ex-service personnel should be first in the queue for them IMO.
Agree - them and current service personnel who sometimes get housed in absolute hovels
Soldato
That'll be the end of Colerne as a pleasant village and I can't see much they could do to improve the relatively poor roads in the area to cope with the increase in residential traffic due to the nature of the terrain (Colerne Airfield and Azimghur Barracks are two sides of the same site)
Last edited:
Caporegime
Associate
There was a Channel 4 Dispatches programme a few weeks back about MOD selling off the MOD Land. And predictably the land was sold off cheap and rich developers came along and built expensive houses after MOD saying the sold of land was for affordable rental and owned homes.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/the-great-housing-scandal-channel-4-dispatches
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/the-great-housing-scandal-channel-4-dispatches
This sort of thing typifies the MoD and how inept they are when it comes to getting value for money.
Unfortunately it's a case of the rich getting richer from such deals.
Yet they're the first to harp on when they have their budgets cut!
Last edited:
To me, it is a no-brainer...
Government pays construction companies to build new houses on these MOD sites, encouraging construction company growth.
New infrastructure creates a demand for local shops and services, creating more economic growth.
Local councils get a share of the rental income from these new homes, as well as some property sales. Some goes straight back to MOD/government. No reason why some of the site's homes could not be made part rent/buy, with a fixed maximum ownership percentage of say 75% (so there will always be rent charged for 25% of each property).
Relative sudden boom in local rental supply reduces the vice-like grip on local rental prices set by private landlords, plus the cancerous growth of "money for nothing" letting agent fees.
etc.
If the MOD sites were owned by relatively small companies, I could see why they would sell them simply as land with planning permission for other companies to buy and build on (and make the big profit margin). But this is currently government land and in the grand scheme of things, the outlay for tendering out the building of new homes is peanuts compared to other expenditure.
Not only that, it should improve the returns that the government gets on the site and help alleviate the massive UK housing affordability problem with both renting and mortgaging that has developed over the last ~25 years.
Government pays construction companies to build new houses on these MOD sites, encouraging construction company growth.
New infrastructure creates a demand for local shops and services, creating more economic growth.
Local councils get a share of the rental income from these new homes, as well as some property sales. Some goes straight back to MOD/government. No reason why some of the site's homes could not be made part rent/buy, with a fixed maximum ownership percentage of say 75% (so there will always be rent charged for 25% of each property).
Relative sudden boom in local rental supply reduces the vice-like grip on local rental prices set by private landlords, plus the cancerous growth of "money for nothing" letting agent fees.
etc.
If the MOD sites were owned by relatively small companies, I could see why they would sell them simply as land with planning permission for other companies to buy and build on (and make the big profit margin). But this is currently government land and in the grand scheme of things, the outlay for tendering out the building of new homes is peanuts compared to other expenditure.
Not only that, it should improve the returns that the government gets on the site and help alleviate the massive UK housing affordability problem with both renting and mortgaging that has developed over the last ~25 years.
Soldato
At least the inbred locals will get some new blood
Only used to take me 12 mins to get there from Chippenham but extra traffic would be a nightmare. They'd have to build some sort of shopping area though as it's in the middle of nowhere.
Associate
MOD are totally skint. They have to sell the land off, as they are struggling to afford upkeep on existing bases. When I was in single accommodation in the RAF during mid 1990's, it was condemned accommodation on more than three occasions and were in such poor state, that a prison cell had better facilities than what we paid for. Since then, they have sold off/demolished these older blocks, but now their replacements have fallen in disrepair. Sad to see RN Marines barracks Stonehouse going, stayed there a few times for sailing courses and beer calls with the nutters!!
They're already re-developing the 3 sites they sold in Bath. One is "exclusive housing", one is part social housing and one is now wholly owned by the local HA (Curo) and will be 100% social housing/affordable homes.
In Bath, 40% of any development over 10 units or 0.5ha needs to be affordable housing, anything between 5 and 9 units or 0.25-0.49ha needs to be 20%. If you choose to opt out of this, I *think* (we work with some developers) the tariff is around £10k per property NOT developed as SH/AH.
In Bath, 40% of any development over 10 units or 0.5ha needs to be affordable housing, anything between 5 and 9 units or 0.25-0.49ha needs to be 20%. If you choose to opt out of this, I *think* (we work with some developers) the tariff is around £10k per property NOT developed as SH/AH.
try living down on the south coast.
the only thing that gets built around here is retirement and luxury/holiday housing.