please empty your brain below

I've been reading about this, but they've been quite vague about how they plan to enforce future sales staying below market rate. The little amount they've said about it sounds like quite a leaky ship, to be honest. Their idea of owning the land and only selling the houses doesn't sound like it would give them any particularly strong control over the sale price of the house itself.

Maybe they have thought it through and made it watertight; they just haven't really communicated that in the releases I've read. Cynical me sees someone taking it to court in the future and getting the right to sell it for whatever they damn well please.
"owning the land and only selling the houses" sounds like leases (possibly long leases) so there will be an opportunity to impose legal covenants that should be binding on purchasers.
That's exactly my fear. The sort of covenants you speak of have been overturned many, many times before. It was tried in Bourneville, but that's now open to whatever people want to buy and sell for. I'm just wondering what they've done differently to ensure a different outcome.
wasnt danny boyle a supporter of piss off we want your council flat for the olympics,tosser










TridentScan | Privacy Policy