Chances of building on green belt?

[LambShank]

I also, apparently, live above a basin of potentially very frackable gas....

[m3jappa]

So looks like a resounding now then.

Strikes me as odd some of these planning laws. I do get it, not wanting people to build all over the countryside, but this place would be of benefit IMO, it looks st, it always will look st and there's properties either side anyway.
There's even a driveway with huge metal gates leading up to the hardstanding (which they told him to remove before allowing the stables).

He's always wanted loads of money for it, he's been offered 70k before any planning for the stables, he refused it.

[Wilmslowboy]

If your a large house builder with corrupt connections into the local council - not a problem

Small person wanting to make a plot better and build a single desirable home - not a chance

[LambShank]

Nowt so strange as planners.

This pic - at the bottom right is a golf club club house - the cars are in its car park.
The red car at the bottom is against a fence.
The rusty coloured blob next to the car is an old shipping container and all the junk next to it is a builders storage.

It's actually a nice sized plot, not in green belt and totally surrounded by housing.

All the buildings to the north and west - the dark tiled roof houses were barns that the builder converted in 1994, the red pan tiled houses were new builds at the same time.

He's tried many times to get permission to put a small bungalow on the storage area but always gets turned down...

[blueg33]

Wilmslowboy said:

If your a large house builder with corrupt connections into the local council - not a problem

Small person wanting to make a plot better and build a single desirable home - not a chance

Greenbdly policy is not going to be changed by a corrupt councillor or two. It would be called in by the secretary of state

[V8RX7]

blueg33 said:

Wilmslowboy said:

If your a large house builder with corrupt connections into the local council - not a problem

Small person wanting to make a plot better and build a single desirable home - not a chance

Greenbdly policy is not going to be changed by a corrupt councillor or two. It would be called in by the secretary of state

Generally it isn't corrupt - houses have to go somewhere and Developers look at maps decide where the best places are and option them, then promote them.

I have seen a bypass moved to incorporate extra land - but that was done by the land owner.

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

Footprint replacement is about all you can generally do in the greenbelt, but if you are replacing agricultural with resi footprint that's difficult too.

I generally walk away from greenbelt sites...

With due respect, that's because you're usually interested in building more than a single dwelling, which is a different game altogether, I admit.

For single dwellings, there are lots of possibilities other than footprint replacement - having worked for years for the big developers, a significant part of my workload is now obtaining PP for individual dwellings in open countryside.

[Equus]

V8RX7 said:

blueg33 said:

Wilmslowboy said:

If your a large house builder with corrupt connections into the local council - not a problem

Small person wanting to make a plot better and build a single desirable home - not a chance

Greenbdly policy is not going to be changed by a corrupt councillor or two. It would be called in by the secretary of state

Generally it isn't corrupt ...

This.

And generally it's much easier for the small person to get permission for a single dwelling in open countryside than it is for a large housebuilder to get permission for many.

[Efbe]

m3jappa said:

I know someone who is selling just under 2 acres of green belt.

He has been using it for storing building materials on and it generally looks a state, there's an old caravan, a tractor, a jcb and loads of st, along with 3 containers.

He had a prohibition notice put on him.

He applied for planning for stables and also for the containers to 'store' hay. Planning for this has been granted.

Anyway. He has wanted to sell the land for a while now, he wants 150k as now he thinks planning for a house or houses will be given easier.

To note there is several property's to each side of the field. Along with various other new builds down the same road. A house would vastly improve the place.

Is this a likely proposition?

Edited by m3jappa on Wednesday 17th August 21:14

do you need planning permission for stables?

[Boosted LS1]

One day Nottingham and Derby will just be one big urban sprawl and the green belt will be destroyed. We need less people, not more houses. I wonder if politicians are scared to say this?

[blueg33]

Equus said:

blueg33 said:

Footprint replacement is about all you can generally do in the greenbelt, but if you are replacing agricultural with resi footprint that's difficult too.

I generally walk away from greenbelt sites...

With due respect, that's because you're usually interested in building more than a single dwelling, which is a different game altogether, I admit.

For single dwellings, there are lots of possibilities other than footprint replacement - having worked for years for the big developers, a significant part of my workload is now obtaining PP for individual dwellings in open countryside.

Hence my comment about footprint replacement. I have done that for single large houses but generally there has already been a non agricultural use. Still not easy

[blueg33]

Boosted LS1 said:

One day Nottingham and Derby will just be one big urban sprawl and the green belt will be destroyed. We need less people, not more houses. I wonder if politicians are scared to say this?

Now there is a huge subject in itself and not eady to fix. People live for longer, there are more single parent households (ie 2 homes needed instead of 1)

[Neil - YVM]

blueg33 said:

Wilmslowboy said:

If your a large house builder with corrupt connections into the local council - not a problem

Small person wanting to make a plot better and build a single desirable home - not a chance

Greenbdly policy is not going to be changed by a corrupt councillor or two. It would be called in by the secretary of state

Guess it needs a corrupt Councillor and secretary of state, as in the South East, we are being swamped by new build developments on farm land that was within the green belt. Truly saddens me.

[blueg33]

Neil - YVM said:

blueg33 said:

Wilmslowboy said:

If your a large house builder with corrupt connections into the local council - not a problem

Small person wanting to make a plot better and build a single desirable home - not a chance

Greenbdly policy is not going to be changed by a corrupt councillor or two. It would be called in by the secretary of state

Guess it needs a corrupt Councillor and secretary of state, as in the South East, we are being swamped by new build developments on farm land that was within the green belt. Truly saddens me.

On actual designated greenbelt? Or on land that people commonly mistake for greenbelt?

Greenbelt does occasionally get rolled back but corruption doesnt come into it. There is a due process

Accusing developers of being corrupt really pisses me off. In 30 years of leading land and planning with the biggest uk developers i have never seen any corruption between developers and the planning decision makers. Developers and agents, yes i have been aware of, but uk planning is pretty clean and involves too many individuals.

People seem to say it must be corrupt when the devision goes against their wishes. The liklihood is that in reality they didn't make a sound argument.

Edited by blueg33 on Friday 19th August 07:17

[m3jappa]

Efbe said:

do you need planning permission for stables?

I'm not sure what you need, but I do know that he applied for ten stables and eventually got permission for two, along with 2 containers allowed to be kept along with the hard standing he put down.

Think green belt: nice green field

Think this place: think steptoes yard.

[hoppo4.2]

A guy that lives at the end of my old man's road just built 33 houses right behind his Street on greenbelt that had been protected for over 30 years.

Planning was granted despite massive opersition. Because the local council "don't have a five year plan in place so can't refuse anything"

I'm sure that it's nothing to do with the fact that he is a local counciler and on the planning committee.

Needless to say now the most hated guy in the street.

[m3jappa]

But also the richest

[Neil - YVM]

blueg33 said:

Neil - YVM said:

blueg33 said:

Wilmslowboy said:

If your a large house builder with corrupt connections into the local council - not a problem

Small person wanting to make a plot better and build a single desirable home - not a chance

Greenbdly policy is not going to be changed by a corrupt councillor or two. It would be called in by the secretary of state

Guess it needs a corrupt Councillor and secretary of state, as in the South East, we are being swamped by new build developments on farm land that was within the green belt. Truly saddens me.

On actual designated greenbelt? Or on land that people commonly mistake for greenbelt?

Greenbelt does occasionally get rolled back but corruption doesnt come into it. There is a due process

Accusing developers of being corrupt really pisses me off. In 30 years of leading land and planning with the biggest uk developers i have never seen any corruption between developers and the planning decision makers. Developers and agents, yes i have been aware of, but uk planning is pretty clean and involves too many individuals.

People seem to say it must be corrupt when the devision goes against their wishes. The liklihood is that in reality they didn't make a sound argument.

Edited by blueg33 on Friday 19th August 07:17

Blue, didnt mean to pee anyone off.

Im aware of the process that has been through, but still find it tough to understand how so much farm land locally can be turned over to develop housing.
I fully accept that with a growing population we need more housing, and yes there may be a bit of Nimby-ism. But these developments are out of scale to the surrounding towns, and little or no consideration appears given to the surrounding infra structure.
Hence why the general opinion is one of confusion as to how that could have been passed.
One example, on the road approaching the next town to me, which gets heavily congested each morning and evening, work has just started on 600 new properties, on farm land which was outside the town planning border, and I believed green belt (I might be wrong).

Incidentally, its still corruption whether between planners or agents.

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

Accusing developers of being corrupt really pisses me off. In 30 years of leading land and planning with the biggest uk developers i have never seen any corruption between developers and the planning decision makers. Developers and agents, yes i have been aware of, but uk planning is pretty clean and involves too many individuals.

This; Ditto.

I (or rather the developer I was working for at the time) was actually investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, when political accusations were made of developer corruption in Tewkesbury (BlueG33 will doubtless remember the case), stemming from a spat between Borough Councillors.

They didn't find anything, because there was nothing to find: I know this for a fact, because I was personally responsible for handling the Planning on the specific applications where corruption was alleged.

The whole 'backhanders in the Planning system' thing is tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorism from people who don't understand the system and the legislation that underpins it, and therefore grasp at corruption as the only straw that makes sense to them.

IT DOESN'T HAPPEN

[Equus]

Neil - YVM said:

Incidentally, it's still corruption whether between planners or agents.

BlueG33 said between developers and agents, not between planners and agents.

This does happen, certainly, but it has no bearing on the Planning outcome.

I've also known corruption between developers and developers (typically, to con a landowner into thinking he's got the big local developers competing for the value of his land, when in fact they've stitched up a consortium deal, or deals, behind his back).

These things are an obvious temptation, where large amounts of money are involved, but as BlueG33 has said, with the Planning system there are too many people involved, and too many checks and balances, for it to be a worthwhile risk.