New development at the end of an unadopted road
Discussion
Grumps. said:
Electro1980 said:
Grumps. said:
Gotta love those back handers eh?
Why do people always claim this? What’s more likely:The council, developers and planning committee are all corrupt and risk prison, and a group of angry residents (who are too thick to realise you can’t just claim ownership of a footpath because it’s not used) are correct.
Or, the planners and developers, who’s job it is, and livelihood depends on, understanding the details of planning law know more than said residents?
Grumps. said:
Electro1980 said:
Grumps. said:
Gotta love those back handers eh?
Why do people always claim this? What’s more likely:The council, developers and planning committee are all corrupt and risk prison, and a group of angry residents (who are too thick to realise you can’t just claim ownership of a footpath because it’s not used) are correct.
Or, the planners and developers, who’s job it is, and livelihood depends on, understanding the details of planning law know more than said residents?
In all that time I have NEVER ONCE encountered corruption in the process.
I was offered £50,000 once to allow an applicant to build a new dwelling on his field in the open countryside. From an employee of the Council!
I didn’t accept.
People may attempt to bribe local authority planners, but of the actual professional officers (not councillors on planning committees who aren’t planners), I’ve never heard of one actual bribe being taken.
It never fails to depress me how poor the understanding is of the basics of the planning system is by the general public in this country and how some incorrect knowledge on the topic breeds a personal ideology fed from ropey political views. To balance, the planning system itself is twisted in knots under the weight of trying to do what’s right against a massive bureaucracy and political system filled with people who don’t know what they’re doing.
I didn’t accept.
People may attempt to bribe local authority planners, but of the actual professional officers (not councillors on planning committees who aren’t planners), I’ve never heard of one actual bribe being taken.
It never fails to depress me how poor the understanding is of the basics of the planning system is by the general public in this country and how some incorrect knowledge on the topic breeds a personal ideology fed from ropey political views. To balance, the planning system itself is twisted in knots under the weight of trying to do what’s right against a massive bureaucracy and political system filled with people who don’t know what they’re doing.
smokey mow said:
I must be doing it all wrong, 20 years in local government and the most I’ve ever been given is a bottle of wine at Christmas.
Which I assume was fully declared as a gift.On second thoughts, based on the stuff I have been given over the years in public and third sector at Christmas it was probably well under the limit.
Unreal said:
Early on Equus said something that the OP will soon discover. Talk is cheap.
The support will melt away once money is required or risk is involved, let alone creating that rustic blockade.
The OP and his neighbours have only two choices:The support will melt away once money is required or risk is involved, let alone creating that rustic blockade.
(1) judicial review of the planning decision (big money, not going to happen); or
(2) the access road stuff I’ve discussed.
- 2 requires some determination to (a) get all the info together, including if necessary some historical documentation, and (b) understand / find a lawyer who understands the law & precedent and - importantly - how to use it to gain an advantage / result.
Equus has correctly said that it is likely the developers have got their ducks in a row. But my experience is that this isn’t always the case, because people see what they want to see (or don’t look too hard in case they might not like what they find).
If the OP really wants to stop this, #2 is where I’d invest my time.
roscopervis said:
It never fails to depress me how poor the understanding is of the basics of the planning system is by the general public in this country and how some incorrect knowledge on the topic breeds a personal ideology fed from ropey political views. To balance, the planning system itself is twisted in knots under the weight of trying to do what’s right against a massive bureaucracy and political system filled with people who don’t know what they’re doing.
I get what you’re saying however my own personal experience where a builder who worked for local authorities built 7 outbuildings on his land in 2006/7 under PD. 3 enforcement cases were opened and closed saying it’s PD.He gets repossessed in 2008 we buy in 2010.
Council does say that some of the buildings may not be PD during the sale.
Just before the 4 years is up they serve me a notice to knock them all down saying they’re not in the curtilage and some not incidental.
It was bloody obvious that some weren’t as I’m not sure that a dog kennel at 54 sq meters would be
In 2010 i nought about planning not alot has changed
skwdenyer said:
The OP and his neighbours have only two choices:
(1) judicial review of the planning decision (big money, not going to happen); or
(2) the access road stuff I’ve discussed.
Equus has correctly said that it is likely the developers have got their ducks in a row. But my experience is that this isn’t always the case, because people see what they want to see (or don’t look too hard in case they might not like what they find).
If the OP really wants to stop this, #2 is where I’d invest my time.
Thanks again I will pass the information on.(1) judicial review of the planning decision (big money, not going to happen); or
(2) the access road stuff I’ve discussed.
- 2 requires some determination to (a) get all the info together, including if necessary some historical documentation, and (b) understand / find a lawyer who understands the law & precedent and - importantly - how to use it to gain an advantage / result.
Equus has correctly said that it is likely the developers have got their ducks in a row. But my experience is that this isn’t always the case, because people see what they want to see (or don’t look too hard in case they might not like what they find).
If the OP really wants to stop this, #2 is where I’d invest my time.
I actually want the plot developed something that fits in with the surrounding area
skwdenyer said:
JNW1 said:
We've got loads of developments going up around where I live and the issue I have with them is there seems to be invariably no thought given to improving the infrastructure to go with them. More often than not there's no more doctors, dentists, schools, etc, to cater for all the extra houses and people and when you're talking about developments in relatively small villages even things like access roads can soon start to become inadequate if the number of vehicle movements increases significantly.
But try putting that to planning departments and it's like knocking your head against a brick wall - they just seem to stick to their pre-determined script and move on to approving the next development regardless. Based on experience round here there's lots of development going on but precious little in the way of thoughtful planning....
Don’t blame the planners - their hands are highly tied. Blame GovtBut try putting that to planning departments and it's like knocking your head against a brick wall - they just seem to stick to their pre-determined script and move on to approving the next development regardless. Based on experience round here there's lots of development going on but precious little in the way of thoughtful planning....
JNW1 said:
skwdenyer said:
JNW1 said:
We've got loads of developments going up around where I live and the issue I have with them is there seems to be invariably no thought given to improving the infrastructure to go with them. More often than not there's no more doctors, dentists, schools, etc, to cater for all the extra houses and people and when you're talking about developments in relatively small villages even things like access roads can soon start to become inadequate if the number of vehicle movements increases significantly.
But try putting that to planning departments and it's like knocking your head against a brick wall - they just seem to stick to their pre-determined script and move on to approving the next development regardless. Based on experience round here there's lots of development going on but precious little in the way of thoughtful planning....
Don’t blame the planners - their hands are highly tied. Blame GovtBut try putting that to planning departments and it's like knocking your head against a brick wall - they just seem to stick to their pre-determined script and move on to approving the next development regardless. Based on experience round here there's lots of development going on but precious little in the way of thoughtful planning....
I have been developing all sorts of sites for 30 plus years, anything from new homes of greenfield through high rise city centre to stately homes conversions, schools and hospitals.
They all have their Nimbys, and this thread shows that nimby attitude and complete lack of self awareness very clearly. It’s also eye opening in nonsense value, immigration my arse
If a development is in policy it should be allowed if it’s out of policy by all means fight it, but on policy grounds.
Claims of backhanders are total rubbish. It doesn’t happen. If as some say they have witnessed it, they could prove it by posting links to the prosecution as obviously they would have reported it, and it’s a very serious matter.
They all have their Nimbys, and this thread shows that nimby attitude and complete lack of self awareness very clearly. It’s also eye opening in nonsense value, immigration my arse
If a development is in policy it should be allowed if it’s out of policy by all means fight it, but on policy grounds.
Claims of backhanders are total rubbish. It doesn’t happen. If as some say they have witnessed it, they could prove it by posting links to the prosecution as obviously they would have reported it, and it’s a very serious matter.
Grumps. said:
Backhanders doesn't always involve the passing of money. It's an expression that used that can encompass all sorts of 'gifts'.
Same rules apply. Please provide your evidence. Bribery act covers more than cash, misconduct in a public office covers more than cash. Please let us know what happened and what you did to report it.
blueg33 said:
Grumps. said:
Backhanders doesn't always involve the passing of money. It's an expression that used that can encompass all sorts of 'gifts'.
Same rules apply. Please provide your evidence. Bribery act covers more than cash, misconduct in a public office covers more than cash. Please let us know what happened and what you did to report it.
Grumps. said:
blueg33 said:
Grumps. said:
Backhanders doesn't always involve the passing of money. It's an expression that used that can encompass all sorts of 'gifts'.
Same rules apply. Please provide your evidence. Bribery act covers more than cash, misconduct in a public office covers more than cash. Please let us know what happened and what you did to report it.
Grumps. said:
blueg33 said:
Grumps. said:
Backhanders doesn't always involve the passing of money. It's an expression that used that can encompass all sorts of 'gifts'.
Same rules apply. Please provide your evidence. Bribery act covers more than cash, misconduct in a public office covers more than cash. Please let us know what happened and what you did to report it.
or even
A bit about the local authority involved a link to the planning application so we can compare the proposal with policy to see whether it would have been a good planning prospect or whether the decision is contrary to published policy. Even the application number or address and year would be enough. The application and policy are all public domain.
I can also then see the minutes of the committee meeting and judge whether any member acted unusually
These are simple things to provide, otherwise i am afraid that your assertions have no demonstrable merit and fall into the category of uninformed naïve b
ksEdited by blueg33 on Wednesday 29th March 08:48
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
vonhosen said:
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.
Nimby?What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?
Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?
king-selfish view of the world. That sort of person. Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.
Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?
It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.
Migration has been allowed because both New Labour and Tories were/are funded/ran by the same people- business owners who want lower wages and landlords who want more demand for property.
More congestion, more stress, more crime, more demand for public services...... none of which will be experienced by those responsible for the house building, living in their very affluent areas. And these people use public services (education and healthcare) less, so that affects them less too.
It's not being a "nimby" to oppose all this, it's common f
king sense (unless you wish the entire country resembles London?).Can you define what a nimby is, if not this? You're even whining about foreigners! West Ham fan? Central casting or what!?
Someone, out there, who is like you, but who is not you, would very much prefer that your house did not exist. They have really strong opinions about it.
Be honest now - how much influence over the existence of your house would you like to give them?
I'm against 95% of the population having their quality of life ruined so the remaining 5% can increase their bank balance, without feeling the effects of their actions.
Which of the above is unreasonable and why?
"Any comments from the floor?"
"Err, Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to say that having 30 new houses at the end of the road is going to ruin my quality of life. And everyone else's. And, err, there are too many immigrants."
"Right, well, umm, thank you for feeling you could speak so freely. [embarrassed pause] Shall we move to a vote?"
Does more people increase the demand for housing/rent? Yes
Does an increase in the demand for housing/rent increase prices? Yes
Does more people increase the supply of Labour? Yes
Does an increase in the supply of Labour suppress wages? Yes
Do the CBI pressure the Government to increase immigration? Yes
Do the CBI represent business owners? Yes
Does more people increase the traffic on roads? Yes
Does more people increase the demand for public services? Yes
Which part is made up?
people living longer
people getting married later
more single parent families
poor quality existing housing stock
Blaming immigration is daft its just a way of you justifying an anti immigration position
The current housing crisis was predicted and modelled 30 plus years ago when immigration was much lower. Successive governments have constrained housing supply through inaction and incompetence just hoping that the next government will pick up the ball
Edited by blueg33 on Wednesday 29th March 09:19
blueg33 said:
I have been developing all sorts of sites for 30 plus years, anything from new homes of greenfield through high rise city centre to stately homes conversions, schools and hospitals.
They all have their Nimbys, and this thread shows that nimby attitude and complete lack of self awareness very clearly. It’s also eye opening in nonsense value, immigration my arse
If a development is in policy it should be allowed if it’s out of policy by all means fight it, but on policy grounds.
Claims of backhanders are total rubbish. It doesn’t happen. If as some say they have witnessed it, they could prove it by posting links to the prosecution as obviously they would have reported it, and it’s a very serious matter.
Are you saying that there has never been a brown envelope involved in a planning decision.They all have their Nimbys, and this thread shows that nimby attitude and complete lack of self awareness very clearly. It’s also eye opening in nonsense value, immigration my arse
If a development is in policy it should be allowed if it’s out of policy by all means fight it, but on policy grounds.
Claims of backhanders are total rubbish. It doesn’t happen. If as some say they have witnessed it, they could prove it by posting links to the prosecution as obviously they would have reported it, and it’s a very serious matter.
If you are you really need to get out more.
I’m sure it’s rare but it will of happened.
Your comment about quote the court case that’s almost impossible as those involved aren’t going to come clean.
To those that say they have been offered again impossible to prove.
How many industries rely on a brown envelope hotels is one that stands out.
The second highest earner works very close to the reception
Electro1980 said:
Grumps. said:
Gotta love those back handers eh?
Why do people always claim this? What’s more likely:The council, developers and planning committee are all corrupt and risk prison, and a group of angry residents (who are too thick to realise you can’t just claim ownership of a footpath because it’s not used) are correct.
Or, the planners and developers, who’s job it is, and livelihood depends on, understanding the details of planning law know more than said residents?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff