Planning law....with enough funds can you ever lose?

Planning law....with enough funds can you ever lose?

Author
Discussion

funkyrobot

18,789 posts

227 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
speedyguy said:
An 'interesting' argumentsmile
Technically anyone living in a house built after 1947 in many "greenbelt" areas maybe needs to wind their neck in a bit.
The same applies to houses built in your era as 'greenbelt' protectionism/nimbyism wasn't around then similar to social media. It doesn't help that many people don't know the difference between greenbelt and greenfield and the inherent different planning policies, worth reading the link below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt_(United...
Also I find the quote below interesting
I posted similar thoughts on here when I found out that a development of new flats had been bought up by one person in one swoop.

To me, this deprived a lot of people of a starter home. These flats will all now be rented for whatever the person who bought them wants to charge.

I don't think this is right. Some on here didn't agree with me though.

The houses being built on the field behind me are already up for sale. They start at £170,000. That's more than we paid for our semi a few years ago (with a nice garden and yard at the front).

Edited by funkyrobot on Tuesday 28th March 14:32

Dan_M5

615 posts

142 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Thing is its personally opinion. For years a bungalow has been trying to get permission to knock down and rebuild to a larger size 50% increase and its always been denied. New planner is now at the council and they have ok'd it with zero changes.

ukbabz

1,538 posts

125 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
The Councils are struggling to release enough residential development land to meet the targets issued by central government, that's why local plans are taking longer to adopt at the moment. Central Government have identified a massive target which will both provide more new homes to replace the depleted (and dilapidated) housing stock, and which will help kick-start the construction industry. If a town has a target of say 5,000 new homes, and it's local plan only shows 2,000 plots then you will see why they're under pressure to approve new residential development planning applications.

It is not the council who are benefitting from the plan, its the landowners, the developers, and ultimately it's people who want somewhere to live.
We're going through this at the moment, an initial version of the 2031 included some land near our housing development (ex. mod houses away from main village with science park next door). Version 1 of the plan removed the housing near us as it was in an area of outstanding natural beauty as well as would be using some of the land the science park claimed it needed to expand as residential not commercial. So all good as far as we could see the area being preserved.

Nope, local council issue a version 2, with a larger number of houses in an area 200 m away from that which was removed by the independent adviser. At the public consultation the planner stated that it was going to be built on regardless (no approved planning on this AONB land). Currently in the process of reading the rules and drafting an objection but not particularly hopeful!

Riley Blue

20,915 posts

225 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
sparkythecat said:
Riley Blue said:
Here's an example: a village pub came up for sale and was bought by a developer. The developer didn't put any effort into running the pub as a going concern and, much to the chagrin of villagers, it closed.
The developer submitted a planning application to demolish it and build nine houses on the site. Against the advice of planning officers and under considerable pressure from villagers, councillors voted to refuse the application which went to appeal.
Planning inpector came and public meeting was held, lots of villagers attended and blathered on about loss of ammenity, detrimental impact on village life etc. etc. The appeal was upheld, the re-development went ahead.
Fighting the appeal (an obviously futile fight) cost the council £75,000 of public money. Developers have councils by the balls, every time.
Have you got a link to this story ?
I ask as we are just embarking on a save the pub campaign in our village. The developers are on the point of submitting a planning application and I wondered what lessons we could learn from your story
It was over ten years ago when I was on the council's planning board and I've now left the area. From what I've been able to find out, the pub was demolished but nothing was built in its place. A fresh application was submitted in 2013, here's a link to the details of that one, you may be able to trace the original from it - good luck!:

http://publicaccess.mendip.gov.uk/online-applicati...

48k

12,981 posts

147 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Riley Blue said:
speedyguy said:
Riley Blue said:
Here's an example: a village pub came up for sale and was bought by a developer. The developer didn't put any effort into running the pub as a going concern and, much to the chagrin of villagers, it closed.
Would that be the same villagers who maybe prevented it being a sustainable business by lack of use and support as beer is cheaper in the supermarket innit ?
People don't like change.

They were going to change a localish 'pub' to a 'smokehouse restaurant' and 'all' the regulars opposed it.
A pal went in recently and said it was like a scene from deliverance.
I was using it as an example of how councils can be powerless in the face of developers but yes, it's a prime case of 'if you don't use it, you lose it'.
Same is happening in my village. It had a pub which shut down (before I moved to the village) and was bought by the owner of a local estate agents. Despite being a listed building, it is not being maintained and the locals are saying it's a tactic in order to be allowed to demolish the pub and develop the plot. The locals are very vocal on the village FB group whenever the pub is mentioned and yet whenever "pub nights" are run in the village hall they are not that well attended. And you can bet the ones complaining the loudest are not regulars at any of the other four or five pubs within a 2 mile radius of the village. They just like the idea of the village having a pub.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
funkyrobot said:
I posted similar thoughts on here when I found out that a development of new flats had been bought up by one person in one swoop.

To me, this deprived a lot of people of a starter home. These flats will all now be rented for whatever the person who bought them wants to charge.
There's really only two things to say.

1. They're still homes. They're just rented homes, not owner-occupied homes.
2. They can only charge a market rent - they aren't looking for tenants in isolation, they're in competition with plenty of other local properties. Nobody HAS to rent in that development.

funkyrobot

18,789 posts

227 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
There's really only two things to say.

1. They're still homes. They're just rented homes, not owner-occupied homes.
2. They can only charge a market rent - they aren't looking for tenants in isolation, they're in competition with plenty of other local properties. Nobody HAS to rent in that development.
I understand that. But why not offer them up on an affordable housing scheme? You know, help people onto the first step of the property ladder.

In my opinion, it's yet another thing that doesn't make sense when considering the shortage of homes we apparently have. Renting gives someone a place to live, but why not properly utilise a help to buy scheme and give someone a chance at proper ownership?

I had another think about the building around where I live. There are two big sites in town that are currently sat empty. One is an old gas place that has been cleared up and is now wasteland. Another is the site of an hold hospital that was knocked down and cleared up. Either of these sites could be used for quite a few homes. Yet I can't see anything about utilising them.

Riley Blue

20,915 posts

225 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Both sites could be contaminated so expensive to make safe. I've known of an old tannery where anthrax was found and not far from me in Derbyshire the most contaminated site in Western Europe is only now being redeveloped after decades of work to clean it up. It's not always as easy to build on brown field sites as you might think.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
funkyrobot said:
I've just done a bit of digging to find details of the proposed new plan. Interestingly, it only gets worse for where I live. Plan section below:



My house resides near Pin011 (above right of the big R1 lettering). That is the development currently being undertaken.

If you look to the left of the screen you will notice a much larger area earmarked for development (Pin045). In terms of building around me, it's only going to get worse.

Time to seriously consider the move we have been talking about recently. smile
With the increasing pressure to build more housin Pin 011 was always going to be a prime candidate for development given its location in relation to existing land use.
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=524186&y=...
https://goo.gl/maps/MnGWo1betDA2

Nimby

4,572 posts

149 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Councils have to follow the "National Planning Policy Framework". If there isn't an adopted Local Plan, the infamous paragraph 14 more-or-less forces them to accept planning applications unless "... adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits".

That's very hard to prove, and invariably refusals are overturned on appeal (at great legal expense to the Council) so developments go ahead in spite of overwhelming local opposition.

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Nimby said:
Councils have to follow the "National Planning Policy Framework". If there isn't an adopted Local Plan, the infamous paragraph 14 more-or-less forces them to accept planning applications unless "... adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits".

That's very hard to prove, and invariably refusals are overturned on appeal (at great legal expense to the Council) so developments go ahead in spite of overwhelming local opposition.
Username checks out.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
Nimby said:
Councils have to follow the "National Planning Policy Framework". If there isn't an adopted Local Plan, the infamous paragraph 14 more-or-less forces them to accept planning applications unless "... adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits".

That's very hard to prove, and invariably refusals are overturned on appeal (at great legal expense to the Council) so developments go ahead in spite of overwhelming local opposition.
Username checks out.
biglaugh
For the record I live in a 'greenbelt' area, it would be useful to know ifor posters are or not so see if the views vary due to "greenbelt" issues or just blatant 'people don't like change"
We have a local case going on, bungalow on large plot sold, app in to build 5 3 storey houses in place of,depending how planning goes a compromise will probably be reached.
The biggest protestor/agitator is the recently moved in bloke opposite who will lose 'a view' all the yokels have an admirable 'brownfield/previously developed land' agenda but even then the locals complain about infill, it's a lose lose situation, when people own a home they seem to gain a fooook everyone else attitude.

sparkythecat

7,898 posts

254 months

Tuesday 28th March 2017
quotequote all
Riley Blue said:
It was over ten years ago when I was on the council's planning board and I've now left the area. From what I've been able to find out, the pub was demolished but nothing was built in its place. A fresh application was submitted in 2013, here's a link to the details of that one, you may be able to trace the original from it - good luck!:

http://publicaccess.mendip.gov.uk/online-applicati...
Thanks for that.

POORCARDEALER

8,523 posts

240 months

Wednesday 29th March 2017
quotequote all
Planning....the cause of much stress in my life.


I genuinely believe there is much bribery and corruption within planning departments.

Riley Blue

20,915 posts

225 months

Wednesday 29th March 2017
quotequote all
POORCARDEALER said:
Planning....the cause of much stress in my life.


I genuinely believe there is much bribery and corruption within planning departments.
I genuinely believe you could be right - I never had any brown envelopes shoved my way though.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Wednesday 29th March 2017
quotequote all
funkyrobot said:
I had another think about the building around where I live. There are two big sites in town that are currently sat empty. One is an old gas place that has been cleared up and is now wasteland. Another is the site of an hold hospital that was knocked down and cleared up. Either of these sites could be used for quite a few homes. Yet I can't see anything about utilising them.
Buy the sites and build the houses- from what you're saying there's quite a lot of money to be made.

Good luck & I hope it goes well for you.

The Surveyor

7,576 posts

236 months

Wednesday 29th March 2017
quotequote all
Riley Blue said:
POORCARDEALER said:
Planning....the cause of much stress in my life.


I genuinely believe there is much bribery and corruption within planning departments.
I genuinely believe you could be right - I never had any brown envelopes shoved my way though.
And I've worked in property from both a consultant and developer aspect for 30 years and have never seen any evidence of such. I'm sure it goes on, but I genuinely believe it's not as widespread as people would like to think, or as widespread as it used to be.

Think about it, you would have to pay-off both the committee and the council officers, and do it in a way that wouldn't leave a gate open for an appeal? It can't be done on large applications which are exposed to public scrutiny and a judicial review period, and it's not viable for smaller applications.