The chaps behind plans for 7500 homes SW of Reading have aborted.....and those close to it are blaming the extortionate s106 payments (the developer tax that adds £5000 to the cost of a new home).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/8556753.stm

Of course this means WBC will now look more favourably on Cartergrad to develop faster in their next 25 Year Plan.

So the would-be developer finally got the message - even the Whitehall 'build em everywhere' department was not going to allow the site to be used.  So they blame S106 payments? Where is that coming from? Presumably they felt that NO would turn to YES if they stumped up enough cash and are now p*****d off that they couldn't find WBC's price.

THis site was not even considered in WBC's recent LDF work and so will make no difference to the 15 year plan that is about to be put in place.

Isn't this in Reading? "Southcote councillor, Pete Ruhemann" certainly is.

Quoted from user23.3

Isn't this in Reading?

Could be - in which case replace WBC's price with RBC's price.

Quoted from blackdog

THis site was not even considered in WBC's recent LDF work and so will make no difference to the 15 year plan that is about to be put in place.

I'm surprised, as much of the land is owned by the Benyons.

Quoted from Meddler

I'm surprised, as much of the land is owned by the Benyons.

WBC's Local Development Framework is about development in West Berks - driven by a government target of 10,500 new homes by 2026.  The 7,500 homes proposed for Kennet Valley (which, as User correctly pointed out is in Reading) would have been part of a wider South-East Development target.  When the Whitehall inspectors decided the site was a no-goer they reduced the South East target by 7,500 (quite remarkable really - does the loss of one site really mean that we need 7,500 less homes?)

Whatever their reasons they did not beef up WBC's target to replace any of the 7.500 lost at Kennet Valley (phew!). Since the LDF came out for consultation last year WBC have lost two sites on planning (Pincents Lane and another nearby) so have to find space for the 1,250 homes those sites would have provided and hence have moved Sandleford Park up from a reserve site to one where 1,000 homes will go in the next 15 years. WBC have also been criticised for not providing affordable housing in rural areas - so the latest version of the LDF seems a little less restrictive on rural development.  

Ownership of the land is irrelevant - unless you feel our MP has undue influence on the planners?