| Topic: | Front page article re. area planning committees | |
| Posted by: | George Knox | |
| Date/Time: | 12/06/11 14:45:00 |
| Guy There are only so many fora which I can read but the thread could have been developed further. There’s nothing to stop pension funds etc playing Monopoly with our high street office blocks and indeed there are some profits to be made. There never will be a stop to Monopoly without a fundamental change to planning control and or rent control. What I object to is seeing these buildings blighting our landscape and community for years without being occupied. If the rents and service charges were affordable then we would see more blocks occupied and new businesses feeding a variety of benefits back into the local area, thereby increasing the local GDP. The rents could then start to rise – albeit slowly enough to underpin the local economy. That is why I would like there to be more powers to the Councils and to locals so that we could see a greater differential between plain redevelopment masquerading under regeneration, and real regeneration where redevelopment is an adjunct to local regeneration. If the developers cannot demonstrate this more clearly and satisfy more tests for local regeneration then there should be some kind of additional penalty or spur to “encourage” the owners to benefit local areas if the office blocks are vacant for more than a specified period. We have had office rent controls before, but I am just a little too young to remember whether they kick started the commercial letting market. Free marketeers may be horrified by this. However could they just be a little more minded to benefit the local economy which every sensible person wants, and not simply their own pockets? |