Property devaluing advice.
Discussion
Escy said:
Funny you say that, my parents have just moved out and also can't face selling for a huge loss so are renting it. I'm surprised they can get away with changing plans once people have signed up. Lots of the homeowners were livid about it and tried to group together to take them to court, nothing came of it.
OP, you say they are building posh houses but there will be a quota of social houses that have to be built.
They have quoted 30% affordable housing but I'm damned if I can find it!OP, you say they are building posh houses but there will be a quota of social houses that have to be built.
You will when the scheme roads are completed be entitled to make a claim under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 which relates to loss of value of your property owing to the use of the roads. You can't make a compensation claim because of the houses as you are able to sue for nuisance.
objecting to new housing because the town is in decline - huh???
will then be between two estates - which came first? is your's spoiling someone else's view?
how long has your house been there?
why didn't you buy the field to preserve the view?
and 'great sutton' - bit smoggy there anyway isn't it?
best of luck
will then be between two estates - which came first? is your's spoiling someone else's view?
how long has your house been there?
why didn't you buy the field to preserve the view?
and 'great sutton' - bit smoggy there anyway isn't it?
best of luck
sixpistons said:
I for one cannot stand this forced social integration with local scum. There is no good reason why social housing must be built next to a 'nice' area. If they want to live in a house next to mine they should get a job and pay for the f
ker themselves.
The theory is that if the poor live next to nice homes they feel obliged to keep theirs nice too and if the right people are found, this works as not all poor people are scumbags.ker themselves.However when I worked for Developers (many years ago) the councils tried to foist the worst people off their books and into these new Housing Association Homes - they tried to make them being able to pick the tenants part of the planning consent - after we'd had the issue we obviously fought this and tried to pay for the obligation to be moved off site but that means you are building Council Estates which again - no one wants.
Perhaps would could build them next to gypsy sites.
OP, I don't have anything to add apart from my sympathy. I'd be gutted in your position.
Don't see any need for the 'suck it up, sucker' responses that you seem to have elicited.
Guess you have a choice about moving house, and buying somewhere where you're out of the way of urban sprawl.
I for one think it's a damn shame when fields are ripped up for generic modern housing when you can point to any number of sites that are stholes where a modern housing estate would definitely be an improvement that are already in towns.
Don't see any need for the 'suck it up, sucker' responses that you seem to have elicited.
Guess you have a choice about moving house, and buying somewhere where you're out of the way of urban sprawl.
I for one think it's a damn shame when fields are ripped up for generic modern housing when you can point to any number of sites that are s
tholes where a modern housing estate would definitely be an improvement that are already in towns.V8RX7 said:
The theory is that if the poor live next to nice homes they feel obliged to keep theirs nice too and if the right people are found, this works as not all poor people are scumbags.
However when I worked for Developers (many years ago) the councils tried to foist the worst people off their books and into these new Housing Association Homes - they tried to make them being able to pick the tenants part of the planning consent - after we'd had the issue we obviously fought this and tried to pay for the obligation to be moved off site but that means you are building Council Estates which again - no one wants.
Perhaps would could build them next to gypsy sites.
The main problem is actually the buy to lets. All the housing association affordable stuff is kept in good nick and bad neighbours are kicked out\improve after a month or so.However when I worked for Developers (many years ago) the councils tried to foist the worst people off their books and into these new Housing Association Homes - they tried to make them being able to pick the tenants part of the planning consent - after we'd had the issue we obviously fought this and tried to pay for the obligation to be moved off site but that means you are building Council Estates which again - no one wants.
Perhaps would could build them next to gypsy sites.
The private rentals though...2 drugs factories, one brothel and one set of drug dealers.
I know which neighbours I prefer.
As has been said OP, you have no right to a view and claiming for that loss or any 'devaluation' is just not an option.
Councils are under pressure all over the country to meet the new housing quotas given to them by the government. Planners are having to give permission to a lot more areas that wouldn't normally be touched because of this pressure. No one's happy about it, but their hands are tied more then you'd probably think.
One of the easiest places builders can now get permission is on greenbelt on the edge of an existing development. Unfortunately in this case, it will affect you.
Brownfield sites have their own problems and as much as it looks the obvious solution, developers tend to avoid them as there can be huge costs involved in clearing sites/contaminates and all sorts before a brick is even laid. Green fields have none of those costs and at the moment, they're easier to build on due to the governments planning policy.
If you object, it needs to be on planning grounds. Noise, pollution, traffic, wildlife, trees etc. Get your local councillor on your side, but at all times, think of planning reasons why it shouldn't be there.
Let's face it, your house would have been someone else's view at one point in time and development will happen, especially in these areas. All you can do is try and fight it with reasoned arguments in the mean time.
I wish you luck
Councils are under pressure all over the country to meet the new housing quotas given to them by the government. Planners are having to give permission to a lot more areas that wouldn't normally be touched because of this pressure. No one's happy about it, but their hands are tied more then you'd probably think.
One of the easiest places builders can now get permission is on greenbelt on the edge of an existing development. Unfortunately in this case, it will affect you.
Brownfield sites have their own problems and as much as it looks the obvious solution, developers tend to avoid them as there can be huge costs involved in clearing sites/contaminates and all sorts before a brick is even laid. Green fields have none of those costs and at the moment, they're easier to build on due to the governments planning policy.
If you object, it needs to be on planning grounds. Noise, pollution, traffic, wildlife, trees etc. Get your local councillor on your side, but at all times, think of planning reasons why it shouldn't be there.
Let's face it, your house would have been someone else's view at one point in time and development will happen, especially in these areas. All you can do is try and fight it with reasoned arguments in the mean time.
I wish you luck
il-mostro said:
SteBrown91 said:
Sorry, mate but you come across as the "not in my back yard" brigade.
No-one has the right to a view, and unless the house was sold on a contact where they guaranteed no building behind you there is little you can do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a swampy sort or anything like that, just someone who loves their view and position. There are loads of brown sites near here which could be used, that said the town is in decline, so I can't see why 200 new detached houses are needed. I'm all for progress for a purpose, but this seems pointless.No-one has the right to a view, and unless the house was sold on a contact where they guaranteed no building behind you there is little you can do.
How is the next guy's house any more or less pointless than yours?
Were you into buzzard protection before all this? What was the impact of your house on the local buzzard population? Have you considered knocking it down and leaving your plot fallow, the better to provide crucial breeding grounds for mice that the buzzards could eat?
andy873 said:
Newts and Bats . . .
This sounds like your best hope. Get on to any local wildlife experts or conservation groups, their objection will have more impact than yours. It's unlikely to stop the development, but it may delay it.Sadly, all the other reasons you have mentioned are unlikely to sway the planners.
Roo said:
You have my sympathy OP.
We back onto farmland. All the local land is owned by one family.
They are forever putting in applications for building houses.
The latest plan involves tarmacking 17 acres of land, at the bottom of our garden, to create a 1,000 space park and ride.
Is that boxted?We back onto farmland. All the local land is owned by one family.
They are forever putting in applications for building houses.
The latest plan involves tarmacking 17 acres of land, at the bottom of our garden, to create a 1,000 space park and ride.
TLandCruiser said:
Roo said:
You have my sympathy OP.
We back onto farmland. All the local land is owned by one family.
They are forever putting in applications for building houses.
The latest plan involves tarmacking 17 acres of land, at the bottom of our garden, to create a 1,000 space park and ride.
Is that boxted?We back onto farmland. All the local land is owned by one family.
They are forever putting in applications for building houses.
The latest plan involves tarmacking 17 acres of land, at the bottom of our garden, to create a 1,000 space park and ride.
il-mostro said:
Great Sutton is where I live. It's a great spot, will just be gutted if we loose the view. Model Famau is an easy spot on a clear day.
Any blocking of Moel Famau is good as it'll stop the village I live in being invaded and littered / fences vandalised by scousers on the first glimpse of snow on the mountains so they can go sledging on private land 
On a serious note though I don't think you've got much hope at all on stopping the inevitable. If it's Redrow or the like they will have already lined the councils pockets to get what they want.
It's not the development that was on bbc recently is it where there was a lot of complaints particularly from farmers?
Lost soul said:
SteBrown91 said:
Sorry, mate but you come across as the "not in my back yard" brigade.
And you would not be feeling exactly the same in his situation Big picture - people have to live somewhere.
Little picture - "but why do they have to do it HERE?" = back yard brigade, as above.
andy873 said:
Newts and Bats . . .
.........are easily dealt with and ultimately wont prevent the development.Loss of view and value are not valid planning reasons.
Op you need to look closely at the local plan policies and come up with objections relating to those. If the location is rural then focus on sustanability, accessibility by public transport, road infrastructure, commuting times and whether local schools are full or not.
Despite all this, be prepared to lose. I am a developer and we rarely lose where we meet policy, we know what we are doing and we employ the best consultants and barristers and can cancel out most arguments. On a mid size site ie 50 or so units its pretty easy to deal with most issues aprt from the ones on mty list. Sounds arrogant, but its fact.
Thnak the Government for the NPPF which has opened a lot of sites up where the local c ouncil is not up to date with its local plan strategy
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff