Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Treasury rescues big building projects with ?2bn injection
? Lack of private finance forces government to act
? Roads, schools and waste management to benefit
The Treasury will announce a ?2bn lifeline today to rescue construction programmes for motorway widening, new schools and incinerators after British and foreign banks pulled out as backers.
The cash injection is aimed at kick-starting up to 110 major projects on a ?13.5bn private finance initiative programme by putting Treasury cash alongside money from contractors with, it is hoped, some contribution from investment banks.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/...nstruction
This will have a positive affect on us.. :face-huh:
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
The cash injection is aimed at kick-starting up to 110 major projects on a ?13.5bn private finance initiative programme by putting Treasury cash alongside money from contractors with, it is hoped, some contribution from investment banks.....
Finally PFI might be of some benefit to the population!
Good news that existing projects are being helped to happen. I've always been dubious when people talk of 'new infrastructure projects' as planning lag is too long, but stalled schemes is different.
If the state puts money into the required level of housebuilding as well, then things would improve fairly quickly for construction, and therefore us. I think that there are probably enough stalled schemes to keep work going til new schemes get through planning. And of course by selling the houses, the state would recoup the money invested.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Bob: Quote:quote:And of course by selling the houses, the state would recoup the money invested.
Not really - none of these are housing projects; we are talking about things like incinerators, hospitals and roads.
Despite what is said in the article, we aren't only talking about PFI schemes. I am aware of at least one large infrastructure project that was always going to be government-funded, but not due for construction until 2011 at the earliest, that has been brought forward and told to spend at least ?100 million this year. The decision was made in December, and the job is already on the ground, with tenders out for large-scale archaeological work.
These accelerated projects are a mixed blessing for archaeology and for the wider environment. OK, the emergency funding does secure archaeological jobs. However, some of these projects had existing commitments to extended programmes of non-intrusive surveys, followed by trial trenching, followed by mitigation design, including substantial excavations in advance of construction, all spread over a year or more. Most of that work will still happen, but compressed into a much shorter period, and I don't think that is necessarily good for the quality of work, or the quality of the decision-making processes involved. Similar comments could be made in relation to protected species, habitats, etc.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
However, some of these projects had existing commitments to extended programmes of non-intrusive surveys, followed by trial trenching, followed by mitigation design, including substantial excavations in advance of construction, all spread over a year or more. Most of that work will still happen, but compressed into a much shorter period, and I don't think that is necessarily good for the quality of work, or the quality of the decision-making processes involved. Similar comments could be made in relation to protected species, habitats, etc.
I couldn't agree more. I think those of us that work in conservation (whether it be nature, heritage or whatever) are in for a bruising couple of years within the planning process. B)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
Posted by Bob: Quote:quote:And of course by selling the houses, the state would recoup the money invested.
Not really - none of these are housing projects; we are talking about things like incinerators, hospitals and roads.
Please read what I said! It was clearly in relation to building houses, such as the ?5billion funding the house builders fed etc are lobbying for. Quite clearly stated, in a separate paragraph...
I agree compression of timetables may happen, but it happens anyway. I can think of numerous sites over the last few years that have been programming nightmares due to compression with everyone on site at the same time etc etc etc.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Quote:quote:And of course by selling the houses, the state would recoup the money invested
And just who is going to buy these houses in the current climate?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
Quote:quote:Originally posted by vulpes
Quote:quote:And of course by selling the houses, the state would recoup the money invested
And just who is going to buy these houses in the current climate?
The government...using our taxes and the taxes of our children?!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
..and our children's children.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
I have personally know two friends who have finally bought flats in the last month as prices came down. Whilst everyone is more concerned about job security than a year ago, and may be far more hesitant about making a purchase many see buying a home as a requirement. There are many people, especially with historically low interest rates, that see this as an opportunity to buy a property. The government is committed to seeing more credit availability, see Northern Rock being sent back into the mortgage market. Many of the strings attached to banks are to increase credit to fuel the economy. There is a massive need for affordable homes, and the demand is there.
It would almost certainly be a better bet than the money being used to insure banks against their bad decisions. Which I believe is what the house builders were saying: giving ?5billion to build houses, and safeguard and create jobs, plus give people the chance to buy homes is better value than ?500billion to banks (or is it ?1.3trillion now, hard to keep up).
The government were talking about a requirement for several hundred thousand new homes in the south east alone. With a reversion to sensible prices, due to the bubble bursting and increased supply, people will buy.
Whether I believe in the economics of this, or indeed in property full stop is open to question...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sparky
..and our children's children.
well given that we only finally paid off Lend-lease from WW2 a few years ago, there's nothing unusual in that....
bail out the banks, or bail the banks and use Fred the shred's pension pot to build some homes?
|
