tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3605929508751872019.post7414914890892622528..comments2023-11-02T01:23:10.207-07:00Comments on Kaz4Wokingham: Did Cllr Keith Baker tell an outright lie in www.getwokingham, did I or was there a mistake?Kazek Lokuciewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286756340250663240noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3605929508751872019.post-85414454743083619642015-03-24T03:26:42.859-07:002015-03-24T03:26:42.859-07:00It should be between the developer and the land ow...It should be between the developer and the land owner to agree a price for the land, if there are other costs which mean that effectively the land is less valuable, then why should this be subsidised by the local authority ? Just as if the land needs clearing or draining this is an additional cost which means the land is worth a bit less, why would the rail issue effect the contribution to infrastructure ? surely it just means those costs mean that the land is worth a little less because the costs are higher? Surely that's for the developers to agree with the landowners. If they had already agreed a price, they have to either re negotiate due to new info (as you might if the survey on a house found a problem), or pull out and let someone else negotiate a fair price. I can't see why local government who are short of cash as it is, should reduce the infrastructure charge. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com