Buying land

[Equus]

bobtail4x4 said:

I believe you can ask for the fee back if the application isnt determined after a certain time.

Yes, you can (26 weeks after validation, unless an extension of time has been agreed).

That doesn't get you a determination, though.

[Equus]

AndyC_123 said:

Had a generic email on 11th Sept from council saying sorry we're running behind, it was simple to become Covid equipped but they can't handle the work load. Nothing apart from that

Well, then at the 8- or 13- week stage you are entitled to appeal on the grounds of non-determination (but all that will get you, realistically, is a further 6-9 months wait while the appeal is backlogged at the Appeals Inspectorate) and as Bobtail says, at the 26 week stage you are entitled to ask for your money back on the application (but that won't make any difference to when you get your decision...though again, it will possibly focus their minds quite a bit if you remind them of the fact as the date approaches).

But remember that if you agree an EoT with them, you relinquish both rights.

[bobtail4x4]

Equus said:

bobtail4x4 said:

I believe you can ask for the fee back if the application isnt determined after a certain time.

Yes, you can (26 weeks after validation, unless an extension of time has been agreed).

That doesn't get you a determination, though.

but it can chase them up

[blueg33]

bobtail4x4 said:

Equus said:

bobtail4x4 said:

I believe you can ask for the fee back if the application isnt determined after a certain time.

Yes, you can (26 weeks after validation, unless an extension of time has been agreed).

That doesn't get you a determination, though.

but it can chase them up

Not in my experience..................

[kev b]

Just sticking my nose in here, results may vary depending on which planning authority you are dealing with.

My neck of the woods is on the border of two authorities and I have acquaintances who have attempted development in both areas with contrasting results.

One authority just seems to rubber stamp any application whilst the other is notorious for moving the goalposts and requiring multiple applications due to “technicalities”. Of course each reapplication means paying again thus swelling their coffers.

Results are inconsistent too, seeming to depend on the planning officers mood on the day, in more than one case the go ahead has been given the nod providing one hurdle is jumped and a reapplication made, only for permission to be denied for something previously deemed ok.

The big players keep at it until they get a result but it is very risky for a normal individual to shell out for surveys, applications etc with no real rationality applied to a decision.

[Escort3500]

kev b said:

Just sticking my nose in here, results may vary depending on which planning authority you are dealing with.

My neck of the woods is on the border of two authorities and I have acquaintances who have attempted development in both areas with contrasting results.

One authority just seems to rubber stamp any application whilst the other is notorious for moving the goalposts and requiring multiple applications due to “technicalities”. Of course each reapplication means paying again thus swelling their coffers.

Results are inconsistent too, seeming to depend on the planning officers mood on the day, in more than one case the go ahead has been given the nod providing one hurdle is jumped and a reapplication made, only for permission to be denied for something previously deemed ok.

The big players keep at it until they get a result but it is very risky for a normal individual to shell out for surveys, applications etc with no real rationality applied to a decision.

Not quite correct. When a previous application has been granted, refused or withdrawn, one further application by the same applicant for the same type of development on the same site can generally be made free of charge within 12 months.

[NextSquareRoot]

Can anyone explain why a 25% uplift over 15 years is allowed/agreed. I cant see why anyone would agree to that, is it just because there isn't another option?

[blueg33]

NextSquareRoot said:

Can anyone explain why a 25% uplift over 15 years is allowed/agreed. I cant see why anyone would agree to that, is it just because there isn't another option?

Its a negotiated position thats all. Each version will be specific to the parties involved and the position negotiated.

I always try and negotiate it away or agree it in a form that means I will never have to pay, but it makes the landowner think he wont lose out.

[ben5575]

blueg33 said:

I always try and negotiate it away or agree it in a form that means I will never have to pay, but it makes the landowner think he wont lose out.

You'll give us all a bad name!

Equus said:

His reputation possibly marks him out for inquiries, but we seldom if ever ended up there. The idea is obviously to forestall problems before they get that far. He's obviously extremely good, but I'm not sure I'd say he's the best analytically. We used Neil Cameron a few times, from memory.

My favourite was a female barrister who shall remain nameless, but that's not because she was the best - it's because she was seriously hot: she had a real dominatrix vibe about her (miniskirts with zips up the side and school m'am glasses to go with the gown and wig in court), but a really nice, down-to-earth personality (many barristers - like surgeons - can be a bit full of their own importance, IME). Always needed a cold shower after I'd had a meeting with Ms. C.

He is (was) a particularly aggressive supermarket's QC of choice. They unleashed him on us at public inquiry when we had the audacity to apply for planning permission on their land. It was quite an experience.

We however ended up with a particularly dry and bookish man. Certainly not as exciting as your Mistress C!

[kev b]

Thank you Escort 3500 I stand corrected.

[Equus]

ben5575 said:

He is (was) a particularly aggressive supermarket's QC of choice. They unleashed him on us at public inquiry when we had the audacity to apply for planning permission on their land. It was quite an experience.

Yes, he has a reputation of being formidable at Public Inquiry. I don't envy you! Did they win?

Horses for courses, of course - at Public Inquiry, you need someone whose verbal presentation is good and who can think on their feet.

We most often used QC's to give a written opinion on a point of Planning law, in which case you want someone careful and thorough, but who can summarise the issues in a clear and concise way that can be understood by us mere mortals.

But if I'm honest, mainly it was the threat of unlimited resources that was enough to give most LPA's pause for thought.

[ben5575]

Equus said:

...

But if I'm honest, mainly it was the threat of unlimited resources that was enough to give most LPA's pause for thought.

Completely. And yet I like you will have been at Committees where they start by updating the Members on all of the appeals they've lost and how much money has been awarded against them. Usually not an eyelid is batted and then they casually proceed to rule against Officers advice in the rest of the meeting. But there have been other threads for ranting!

The Inspector ruled against us, but the SoS found for us. Which was perhaps not surprising given he set us up and (indirectly) funded the application...

[Escort3500]

ben5575 said:

Equus said:

...

But if I'm honest, mainly it was the threat of unlimited resources that was enough to give most LPA's pause for thought.

Completely. And yet I like you will have been at Committees where they start by updating the Members on all of the appeals they've lost and how much money has been awarded against them. Usually not an eyelid is batted and then they casually proceed to rule against Officers advice in the rest of the meeting. But there have been other threads for ranting!

The Inspector ruled against us, but the SoS found for us. Which was perhaps not surprising given he set us up and (indirectly) funded the application...

We too used to update members on appeal decisions every month at an authority I used to worked for - copy of the decision (which it was clear few had bothered to read) and we then summarised the inspector’s findings. In cases where we’d lost and had costs awarded (all too common at one stage and invariably against officer recommendation), members always put it down to “the cost of democracy” and refused to discuss the decision further during the meeting. Awful behaviour.

[dazwalsh]

I have just done exactly what you are proposing OP, taking a mild punt on a plot with no planning permission.

I expected some hurdles along the way but encountered the first even before completion. The vendors wanted to remove all rights to services, which my expensive solicitor managed to overturn. I've just signed the Tr1 and that should be the purchase complete.

Next is planning, which on the face of it should be a doddle but i doubt it will be. it's a piece of land on the edge of a late 80's / early 90's housing estate, currently overgrown.

Architect reckons its a shoe in for planning, has sufficient access, will have sufficient parking, not really overlooking anything and doesn't affect rights of light or anything. fingers crossed.

Once that has been granted I reckon its the hardest part of the project overcome.

Edited by dazwalsh on Tuesday 27th October 10:39

[Escort3500]

Has your architect checked the development plan for the area and any development limits it may contain?

[dazwalsh]

Escort3500 said:

Has your architect checked the development plan for the area and any development limits it may contain?

Yeah its not subject to any particular zone or restrictions. as far as i can tell its good for building on (subject to planning of course). It actually falls within a regeneration priority area, which might actually be beneficial rather than a hurdle

My biggest concern is that it was possibly a dump piece of land that contains all the leftover crap from the estate build, which could mean more money required for groundworks, but I have allowed 25k just to get out of the ground just incase, with a healthy contingency thereafter.

Edited by dazwalsh on Tuesday 27th October 10:47

Edited by dazwalsh on Tuesday 27th October 10:55

[Equus]

dazwalsh said:

My biggest concern is that it was possibly a dump piece of land that contains all the leftover crap from the estate build, which could mean more money required for groundworks, but I have allowed 25k just to get out of the ground just incase, with a healthy contingency thereafter.

First thing I would be looking into would be why it wasn't built on by the estate developer... housing developers aren't usually in the habit of leaving bits of their sites undeveloped for the fun of it.

[blueg33]

I wouldn’t rely on an architect for planning advice

[dazwalsh]

Equus said:

First thing I would be looking into would be why it wasn't built on by the estate developer... housing developers aren't usually in the habit of leaving bits of their sites undeveloped for the fun of it.

Ye this is probably the most worrying part of it, its a mound of soil which is going to require about 4 grab trucks to take excess away. It borders a large piece of open land, so my thoughts were that it was to be an access road for this that never materialised, or its where they had the site cabins and what not and by the time they finished it wasn't worth building on perhaps? its not a large estate, maybe 20 houses.

Of course if planning gets granted and soil appears normal then it will always be a mystery, but that was one of my initial worries as to why it wasn't built on before. Again it was a punt so there is some risk involved.

[dazwalsh]

blueg33 said:

I wouldn’t rely on an architect for planning advice

He is a good mate of mine, so we have a more casual conversation about the plans rather than anything formal. He does tell me that dont take what he says as granted. but in his experience etc etc