...rubbish presents
December 2007 Archives
In 2002 the French town of Roanne awarded the contract to build the local leisure centre to the Société d'Equipement du Département de la Loire (SEDL). But they hadn't put the job out to tender or held a competition to select the best design. This led to an EU ruling which states that a contracting authority cannot directly award a contract to a company that is privately owned. Which is why you won't see The Eden Quarter, a 750,000 sq ft retail led, mixed-use scheme in the centre of Kingston anytime soon. Link
A guide to investment opportunities in north London? The North London Development and Investment Framework Prospectus says it's just that.
Merton Rule, Fallon's bill...what's it all about? Here's the 30 second answer - Merton Rule states that 10% of all energy on new developments to be produced on-site from renewable sources (keyword here is on-site), building industry wants this to change to include off-site renewables as well, Yvette Cooper says off-site may be allowed, Tory MP Michael Fallon fears the government is backtracking, introduces private members bill to allow councils to set their own targets for renewable energy for new developments, gains cross-party support from 11 MPs including John Gummer and John Battle, second reading of the bill in January, decision possible in February.
In July of 2003 Vikas Subharwal was refused planning permission to convert his bungalow in Hounslow to ten bedsits....but he went ahead and did it anyway. Everything went swimmingly over the next couple of years until the London Borough of Hounslow served him with a planning enforcement notice requiring him to restore the property to a single family dwelling. But seeing as the property was generating £4,000 per month he chose to ignore this too...bad move. He was recently taken to Isleworth Crown Court where he was found guilty of failing to company with the terms of the enforcement notice and fined £150,000, probably the biggest fine of this kind in London, ever. Mr Subharwal could now face up to three years in prison if he fails to pay up. But, and I'm just speculating here, if he was making £4,000 a month from July 2003 onwards, that's 52 months, which is £208,000, which is £58,000 more than the fine.
