Developer’s survey on gasworks plans slammed as ‘manipulative’ and ‘biased’

Whinging boomers gonna whinge.

What we need to do is publish the names and addresses of objectors, so we can find out who the freeloaders are stealing the homes and lives of the next generation.

They are going to be in for a shock now the incoming government is focused on working millennials and gen Z who have nothing but a life of hardship and no retirement ahead of them thanks to the selfish actions of the boomerati and nimby’s.

Now their beloved racist homophobic bigoted Tory party are being removed from England just as they have been removed from Scotland, the boomers will now be seen and not heard, as they should be, not ruining the lives of tens of millions and forcing the birth rate down to negative numbers because no one can even afford a single child.

The latest DVS report has just appeared on the Planning Portal. Hefty old read, but one of their conclusions is “100% Market Housing not viable but will proceed anyway”; “100% Market Housing not viable, efficiencies will need to be made to be proceedable.” Presumably this means cutting some corners or clawing back the missing profit in some other way. And, at last, we get an idea of potential prices, ranging from over £300k for a studio (in today’s money but who knows what it would be once they were actually built) to roughly £500k or more for a 2 bed/4 person flat and over a million for a townhouse. On top of that there would obviously be service charges, council tax and, if you were lucky enough to get a scarce on-site parking permit, then there appears to be a charge for that too.
Most, if not all, of the external reports commissioned by BHCC to test the developer’s statements on things such as wind, daylight and sunlight, both concerning the dwellings in the proposed development and surrounding properties, acknowledge that they have made desk-based studies only and have not been to the site. The lived experience of many surrounding residents is very different (i.e. worse) from these computerised projections and, hopefully, the Planning Committee will actually go to the site and experience it for themselves – perhaps on a wet and windy day!
Returning to the 14 terraced townhouses, they are shown as having gardens, which the Building Research Establishment (BRE), acting for the Council, has now assessed for sunlight in gardens as well as updating the forecasts for rooms, concluding that, according to the standard criterion used, (at least 2 hours sunlight on 21 March) even fewer of the living areas would now meet the minimum guidelines. 24 would not meet them, compared to 8 rooms previously. As for the gardens, just one would meet the minimum guideline, but only just. There are quite a few other issues involving light – or, more accurately, darkness – both in the development itself and its surroundings, which, as with the proposal for 9 tower blocks in the Outer Harbour area of the Marina (rejected by the Council, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State in 2021) has light issues because of the developers’ attempts at cramming as many small units as they can get away with into a densely-packed conglomeration of tall buildings. The Gasworks site is not even in an area designated by the Council as suitable for tall buildings.
The Council has been shown indicative drawings by objectors (as a discussion point rather than an actual proposal), which would still deliver a large number of homes, but in a much lower – rise configuration. This would eliminate the need for the very deep and intrusive piling proposed by the developer – the site is on a cliff-top after all – and it seems that the site could be capped, leaving the contaminants undisturbed, as they have been for many years with no discernible harmful effects on locals. The developer isn’t, of course, in the slightest bit interested in considering or looking at a less harmful, much quicker and cheaper solution. They have barely deviated from their ’vision’ for the site in nearly four years and show no inclination of doing so. Before the usual accusations of ‘nimbyism’ start flying again, most reasonable objectors have made it absolutely clear that they want the site to be developed but favour a lower-rise, safer and quicker option, with homes that genuine locals might be able to afford. We are talking about a development that fosters a sense of community and which has light and space, not a tiered rest home for moribund pit ponies. The developer isn’t proposing ‘homes’ at all – just expensive, luxury and ugly boxes of varying shapes and sizes, much like Sirius and Orion in the Marina, where virtually all emphasis is on the ‘glamour’, with prices to match. It would be interesting to know how many of those are holiday lets rather than genuine ‘homes’.
Additionally, this is not about ‘boomers’ and ‘nimbyism’, with critics trying to promote the stereotypical and flawed idea that objectors to the proposal are affluent, all own their own nice homes and are stifling the chances of the younger generation. Quite a few objectors are renters who could not remotely afford one of these luxury high rise boxes even if they wanted one. And some of us have mortgages that would make your eyes bleed.