29th May 2004, 08:12 AM
Hang on a minute....
The realities of development are actually different.
A poor house holder like me that is selling half of his garden will make a six figure sum profit. (In some areas this is not true but in most of Britain it is).
A big PLC house builder will in fact make about 2-3% profit overall.
Are we also advocating subsiding the building costs or the architects fees 10% on small jobs? What is the difference?
The notion of The Polluter Pays is very Thatcherite and assummes that all development is a form of pollution. Ultimately it is but so is breathing and going to the bog. Some development remove pollution surely the concept of the polluter pays rely doesnot apply. Who would argue that a new school or hospital is a form of pollution. People also need houses, they need infrastructure but do they really need archaeology.
Peter Wardle
The realities of development are actually different.
A poor house holder like me that is selling half of his garden will make a six figure sum profit. (In some areas this is not true but in most of Britain it is).
A big PLC house builder will in fact make about 2-3% profit overall.
Are we also advocating subsiding the building costs or the architects fees 10% on small jobs? What is the difference?
The notion of The Polluter Pays is very Thatcherite and assummes that all development is a form of pollution. Ultimately it is but so is breathing and going to the bog. Some development remove pollution surely the concept of the polluter pays rely doesnot apply. Who would argue that a new school or hospital is a form of pollution. People also need houses, they need infrastructure but do they really need archaeology.
Peter Wardle