Chances of building on green belt?
Discussion
The planning system is flawed rather than corrupt.
There is no easy to fix to the flaws.
I agree that infrastructure is never considered properly, mainly because Council's seem to have no idea how their local area actually functions and very few of the agencies that have input are joined up in any meaningful way especially when it comes to decision making.
There is no easy to fix to the flaws.
I agree that infrastructure is never considered properly, mainly because Council's seem to have no idea how their local area actually functions and very few of the agencies that have input are joined up in any meaningful way especially when it comes to decision making.
blueg33 said:
The planning system is flawed rather than corrupt.
Ironically, that's partly the price you pay for a bureaucratic system that is sufficiently transparent, objective and with enough oversight to prevent corruption.It's very unwieldy, and under-resourced on the LPA side - which admittedly gives big developers something of an advantage, since they can run rings around the LPA's; infrastructure being a case in point, as the LPA's don't have sufficient resource to properly analyse what's going on in their area.
But I can't see any easy way of significantly improving it either, without compromising the basic democracy and incorruptibility of the process.
Equus said:
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.
Playing devils advocate, so corruption between developers and agents is accepted, but suggestion of corruption between developers and planners pee's developers off?
blueg33 said:
The planning system is flawed rather than corrupt.
There is no easy to fix to the flaws.
I agree that infrastructure is never considered properly, mainly because Council's seem to have no idea how their local area actually functions and very few of the agencies that have input are joined up in any meaningful way especially when it comes to decision making.
Agreed. (I'll keep my Nimby views to myself).There is no easy to fix to the flaws.
I agree that infrastructure is never considered properly, mainly because Council's seem to have no idea how their local area actually functions and very few of the agencies that have input are joined up in any meaningful way especially when it comes to decision making.
Neil - YVM said:
Equus said:
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.
Playing devils advocate, so corruption between developers and agents is accepted, but suggestion of corruption between developers and planners pee's developers off?
Equus said:
blueg33 said:
The planning system is flawed rather than corrupt.
Ironically, that's partly the price you pay for a bureaucratic system that is sufficiently transparent, objective and with enough oversight to prevent corruption.It's very unwieldy, and under-resourced on the LPA side - which admittedly gives big developers something of an advantage, since they can run rings around the LPA's; infrastructure being a case in point, as the LPA's don't have sufficient resource to properly analyse what's going on in their area.
But I can't see any easy way of significantly improving it either, without compromising the basic democracy and incorruptibility of the process.
Incidentally, i think I should know who you are, just cant quite work it out (slow brain day)
blueg33 said:
All corruption pees me off and i have never made a corrupt payment to an agent, but i know it goes on.
Likewise.I actually resigned from a position running an Architect's practice in the North West when I discovered that the owner of the practice was defrauding one of our developer clients, via their Land Director (basically, inflating the fees that were being invoiced, then splitting the proceeds between them). It's certainly not something I would countenance myself, therefore, but I know it happens, in the same way that I know some men get drunk and beat their wives... knowing it happens doesn't mean you condone it!
The big national developers do operate cartels in certain areas of the country, where a small number of large companies have dominance, and I'm very uncomfortable about that (worship of Mamon, generally, is one of the reasons I got out of the developer side and back into private architectural practice), but I wasn't operating at a senior enough level (ie. MD/Chief Exec) to be able to do anything about it.
I don't think they operate in cartels per se but one or two national developers may have a really strong regional office and simply dominate the area through political connections and past track record. The problem with this is it actually stops/slows developments as they control the taps to suit their cash and profit requirements.
What pees me off the most with NIMBYS are the fact that the houses THEY live in, were once nice green fields or grass/woodland! They all seem to think their property existed since the beginning of time, but unfortunately, you have not acquired a right to the nice view in perpetuity and eventually urban edges must expand to deal with an ever-expanding population. Even without immigration, due to societal shifts and changes in how we live (e.g. divorces (which no sorry you can't blame on immigrations)) we need extra houses in this country and we simply do not build enough of them.
The funny thing is if we did build enough (which the housebuilders could if they wanted to) you would see a dramatic fall in values, which housebuilders, politicians, and all those betting everything on house prices being their retirement sum, can't stomach.
Anyway back to greenbelt. it is right and proper this is reviewed frequently to ensure it is performing its function, and cases like OP's point to where the greenbelt is not actually performing any real function, but was just washed over on a map as an area to be protected.
What pees me off the most with NIMBYS are the fact that the houses THEY live in, were once nice green fields or grass/woodland! They all seem to think their property existed since the beginning of time, but unfortunately, you have not acquired a right to the nice view in perpetuity and eventually urban edges must expand to deal with an ever-expanding population. Even without immigration, due to societal shifts and changes in how we live (e.g. divorces (which no sorry you can't blame on immigrations)) we need extra houses in this country and we simply do not build enough of them.
The funny thing is if we did build enough (which the housebuilders could if they wanted to) you would see a dramatic fall in values, which housebuilders, politicians, and all those betting everything on house prices being their retirement sum, can't stomach.
Anyway back to greenbelt. it is right and proper this is reviewed frequently to ensure it is performing its function, and cases like OP's point to where the greenbelt is not actually performing any real function, but was just washed over on a map as an area to be protected.
Leedssurveyor said:
I don't think they operate in cartels per se but one or two national developers may have a really strong regional office and simply dominate the area through political connections and past track record.
Yes, 'cartel' is perhaps too strong a word for it; as you suggest, it's nothing quite so formal... but I have known circumstances where those two or three 'dominant' national developers have colluded with each other to 'manage' the value of a particular piece of land, to their advantage (ie. the landowner thinks that he has several big developers bidding against each other, when in fact they're talking to each other behind his back to 'fix' the price, with a view to a consortium development or land swaps in due course).blueg33 said:
Commercially it makes sense to share large sites.
Oh, absolutely!Pretending to the landowner that your competing with the others on the shortlist of prospective purchasers he's negotiating with, whilst in the background you're sharing every move in those negotiations with them, busily deciding how to carve up the site between you, and preparing comprehensive viability layouts using their housetypes for the bits they're intending to develop, is a wee bit naughty, though!
Equus said:
blueg33 said:
Commercially it makes sense to share large sites.
Oh, absolutely!Pretending to the landowner that your competing with the others on the shortlist of prospective purchasers he's negotiating with, whilst in the background you're sharing every move in those negotiations with them, busily deciding how to carve up the site between you, and preparing comprehensive viability layouts using their housetypes for the bits they're intending to develop, is a wee bit naughty, though!
Agree its slightly naughty, but no worse than land owners on assembled sites doing their own joint deals to exclude another land owner from uplift etc
I has one deal with 4 land owners, after terms were agreed, 2 of them came to see me and asked for more but not to tell the other two. After that was agreed, one of the 2 came to me and asked for more again and not to tell the other 3.
I am not sure that this is corrupt, its just the cut throat world of business and deals to acquire a finite commodity.
The implication people make on planning, is that bribes are given and that all developers are corrupt, and I totally refute that.
Yes, agree totally.
It's Caveat Emptor (and Caveat Vendor!) where land deals are concerned: if you don't want to get bitten, you don't swim with the sharks!
But there's a very big difference between sharp business practice and corrupting the democratic process.
As an aside, one of the things that the Serious Fraud Office really latched on to when they investigated us was the payment of 'finders fees' on land. Bizarrely, they seemed to think that this was akin to bribery, though we eventually managed to persuade them that it was absolutely standard practice in the industry, and quite normal and legitimate!
It's Caveat Emptor (and Caveat Vendor!) where land deals are concerned: if you don't want to get bitten, you don't swim with the sharks!
But there's a very big difference between sharp business practice and corrupting the democratic process.
As an aside, one of the things that the Serious Fraud Office really latched on to when they investigated us was the payment of 'finders fees' on land. Bizarrely, they seemed to think that this was akin to bribery, though we eventually managed to persuade them that it was absolutely standard practice in the industry, and quite normal and legitimate!
Equus said:
Yes, agree totally.
It's Caveat Emptor (and Caveat Vendor!) where land deals are concerned: if you don't want to get bitten, you don't swim with the sharks!
But there's a very big difference between sharp business practice and corrupting the democratic process.
As an aside, one of the things that the Serious Fraud Office really latched on to when they investigated us was the payment of 'finders fees' on land. Bizarrely, they seemed to think that this was akin to bribery, though we eventually managed to persuade them that it was absolutely standard practice in the industry, and quite normal and legitimate!
Estate Agents Act is clear on fees. Agent cant collect fees from buyer and seller without declaring it. It's Caveat Emptor (and Caveat Vendor!) where land deals are concerned: if you don't want to get bitten, you don't swim with the sharks!
But there's a very big difference between sharp business practice and corrupting the democratic process.
As an aside, one of the things that the Serious Fraud Office really latched on to when they investigated us was the payment of 'finders fees' on land. Bizarrely, they seemed to think that this was akin to bribery, though we eventually managed to persuade them that it was absolutely standard practice in the industry, and quite normal and legitimate!
Indeed. Which by corollary clearly indicates that if they do, they can (or accept fees from either side, independently of course - I doubt that there's anyone daft enough - even in the SFO - to believe that land agents act as 'matchmakers' out of the goodness of their hearts).
They still seemed to think that the whole concept of paying a finders fees was dodgy in some way, though!
They still seemed to think that the whole concept of paying a finders fees was dodgy in some way, though!
blueg33 said:
We have strayed off topic. Op, speak to a planning consultant for site specific advice
Around my way they are re-writing the local plans including consulting on the green belt. They have graded 1-3 in terms of importance as they have to find a way of hitting their share of development targets.(I managed to get PP on a new build in the green belt but it was a complicated situation and we had a master of the art employed, but my god he was expensive.
sw
desolate said:
blueg33 said:
We have strayed off topic. Op, speak to a planning consultant for site specific advice
Around my way they are re-writing the local plans including consulting on the green belt. They have graded 1-3 in terms of importance as they have to find a way of hitting their share of development targets.(I managed to get PP on a new build in the green belt but it was a complicated situation and we had a master of the art employed, but my god he was expensive.
sw
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff