Planning law....with enough funds can you ever lose?
Discussion
speedyguy said:
An 'interesting' argument
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.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
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
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.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.
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!
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 ?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.
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
http://publicaccess.mendip.gov.uk/online-applicati...
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=524186&y=...
https://goo.gl/maps/MnGWo1betDA2
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.
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.
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.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 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.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.
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.
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.http://publicaccess.mendip.gov.uk/online-applicati...
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.
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.I genuinely believe there is much bribery and corruption within planning departments.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff