'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff

rjsterry

For Brian's sake, I thought we could split off the housing/development topic. As much as the current lot are making the situation worse, opposing the local housing development is a pretty guaranteed way for any politician to scoop up votes.

Anyway, this was an eye-catching comparison:

YouGov poll: 57% think that there's enough brownfield land to meet housing demand.


Actual availability of brownfield land compared with requirements for local housing needs.

https://twitter.com/out_planning/status/1616766794278002688

Pross

The ‘public’ haven’t got a censored clue when it comes to development. They seem to think developers choose a field, chuck some brown envelopes to the right people and build away.

I’ve been to numerous public consultations and the locals always accept there’s a need for new housing but ‘this isn’t the right place’. There’s always going to be traffic chaos despite traffic surveys and calculations based on actual facts - ‘we live here, we know what it’s like’ - and a blocked gully or puddle in a nearby field is a sure sign the site will flood (they have no idea what a floodplain actually is but every site is deemed to be in one).

focuszing723

Developers are making good profits, compensate people locally to the development. See if that makes a difference to the attitudes.

briantrumpet

Something I find interesting is that, under the previous edicts, East Devon District Council seemed to be able to earmark land slap bang on the Exeter Boundary at Topsham whose massive impact (500 houses) would only really be on Topsham and Exeter, on an area of land only accessible by two minor roads at the ends of which there are already massive rush-hour traffic jams. It's a farm where I used to work, with the M5 one side, and marsh and river the other side. so there is very limited scope for mitigation for road traffic.

Actually, with creative mitigation for non-road transport, it's not a bad place for development, and its impact in other ways not too bad, but I don't know how much leverage Devon County Council has to make neighbouring authorities impose planning conditions to make a development like this work for both authorities, traffic-wise.

rjsterry

Developers already put large amounts of money into the local area through S106. Or are you suggesting standing outside the planning meeting handing out fifties.

focuszing723

Compensation for the disruption and/or decrease in property prices due to their development that they are making a good profit from. Especially given the fantastical house prices.

Simple, unfair?

I think not.

focuszing723

They want land, well compensate.

oxoman

Knowing several developers personally i have to point out yes they do put a lot of money back into the local areas with section 106's, however some of these developers are only now building on land they purchased 30 or 40 yrs ago. A town near me has a new estate going in of approx 600 houses on farmland that was purchased by the developer 35 yrs ago and has allowed the farmer to use the land rent free till now. The developer also got a big wedge off the highways and local goverment when they put a bypass straight through this land about 15yrs ago. This is all while a brownfield sits beckoning for redevelopment nearby. I know that in my own town they have built 1200 houses on one side over the last 15 yrs and having run out of easy land they are now building another approx 900 houses on the other side of town on already reclaimed or to be reclaimed industrial land.

focuszing723

In what way/capacity do they put money back into local areas?

focuszing723

Does it depend on the size of the development?

Stevo_666

oxoman said:

Knowing several developers personally i have to point out yes they do put a lot of money back into the local areas with section 106's, however some of these developers are only now building on land they purchased 30 or 40 yrs ago. A town near me has a new estate going in of approx 600 houses on farmland that was purchased by the developer 35 yrs ago and has allowed the farmer to use the land rent free till now. The developer also got a big wedge off the highways and local goverment when they put a bypass straight through this land about 15yrs ago. This is all while a brownfield sits beckoning for redevelopment nearby. I know that in my own town they have built 1200 houses on one side over the last 15 yrs and having run out of easy land they are now building another approx 900 houses on the other side of town on already reclaimed or to be reclaimed industrial land.

They should definitely prioritise Brownfield sites, it makes more sense and at the risk of crossing over into the public transport thread, this would be consistent with creating these urban areas where more people take public transport and ebikes rather than building in places that necessitate more car use.

Mad_Malx

briantrumpet said:

Something ....

on an area of land only accessible by two minor roads at the ends of which there are already massive rush-hour traffic jams. It's a farm where I used to work, with the M5 one side, and marsh and river the other side. so there is very limited scope for mitigation for road traffic.

Actually, with creative mitigation for non-road transport, it's not a bad place for development, ....

While accepting Pross’ view on nimbys, this is for me the biggest issue. Even when the local road can be engineered, even modest developments can have a big impact on exacerbating bottlenecks a few miles down the road.

Not that they are ever likely to get their hands anywhere near power again, but the libdems are in favour of ‘new town’ developments, with access to trunk roads, transport hubs etc and a nucleus providing facilities. Problem is that people will live there because it’s affordable, but get in the car to do everything else.

briantrumpet

Mad_Malx said:

briantrumpet said:

Something ....

on an area of land only accessible by two minor roads at the ends of which there are already massive rush-hour traffic jams. It's a farm where I used to work, with the M5 one side, and marsh and river the other side. so there is very limited scope for mitigation for road traffic.

Actually, with creative mitigation for non-road transport, it's not a bad place for development, ....

While accepting Pross’ view on nimbys, this is for me the biggest issue. Even when the local road can be engineered, even modest developments can have a big impact on exacerbating bottlenecks a few miles down the road.

Not that they are ever likely to get their hands anywhere near power again, but the libdems are in favour of ‘new town’ developments, with access to trunk roads, transport hubs etc and a nucleus providing facilities. Problem is that people will live there because it’s affordable, but get in the car to do everything else.

To be fair to DCC & EDDC, Cranbrook - on a greenfield site - was well thought-out, with a new railway station and sensible cycling options, as well as a Park & Ride on the direct entry into Exeter. Ditto all the stuff up around Newcourt & Digby (I have a feeling that @Pross might have had some interest in one or more of these).

This new 'proposal' particularly interests me though in the issues is raises because of its unusual location and access problems, hence my question about the scope and benefit for various authorities talking to each other. As far as I can tell, DCC is quite good in putting in useful infrastructure before development really kicks off, but in this instance I'd be insisting on a very good link over the M5 to get to buses, trains and cycle options, and discouraging multiple car ownership. And given the size of the development, making sure that the developers pay the lions' share of the infrastructure costs, given that the development is only really sustainable with that infrastructure.

oxoman

What I find incredible is the amount of ex WW11 airfields either used for low value industry or at best solar farms. Although they seem to prefer flat open green fields as its easier to set up the panels on. A little village not far from me is now one of the Midlands biggest industrial estates and its still growing with another just being started about 6 miles away just off the M42 that will become huge as it expands. Both sites started as green field sites.

pangolin

Crazy to think there have been 11 world wars. Time flies...

briantrumpet

pangolin said:

Crazy to think there have been 11 world wars. Time flies...

Maybe it was supposed to be "WW10" in binary.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

In what way/capacity do they put money back into local areas?

S106. Paid to the local authority. To give an idea, developing a derelict shell of a house into 3 small flats required a roughly £50k payment. Plus the Community Infrastructure Levy.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

oxoman said:

Knowing several developers personally i have to point out yes they do put a lot of money back into the local areas with section 106's, however some of these developers are only now building on land they purchased 30 or 40 yrs ago. A town near me has a new estate going in of approx 600 houses on farmland that was purchased by the developer 35 yrs ago and has allowed the farmer to use the land rent free till now. The developer also got a big wedge off the highways and local goverment when they put a bypass straight through this land about 15yrs ago. This is all while a brownfield sits beckoning for redevelopment nearby. I know that in my own town they have built 1200 houses on one side over the last 15 yrs and having run out of easy land they are now building another approx 900 houses on the other side of town on already reclaimed or to be reclaimed industrial land.

They should definitely prioritise Brownfield sites, it makes more sense and at the risk of crossing over into the public transport thread, this would be consistent with creating these urban areas where more people take public transport and ebikes rather than building in places that necessitate more car use.

Did you skip the OP? Brownfield *is* prioritised but there's nowhere near enough of it to meet demand.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

Does it depend on the size of the development?

Yes. Anything over IIRC 100m2 - i.e. one small house.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

They want land, well compensate.

They buy the land. It's theirs, not the property of the people who happen to be able to see it from their bathroom window.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

oxoman said:

Knowing several developers personally i have to point out yes they do put a lot of money back into the local areas with section 106's, however some of these developers are only now building on land they purchased 30 or 40 yrs ago. A town near me has a new estate going in of approx 600 houses on farmland that was purchased by the developer 35 yrs ago and has allowed the farmer to use the land rent free till now. The developer also got a big wedge off the highways and local goverment when they put a bypass straight through this land about 15yrs ago. This is all while a brownfield sits beckoning for redevelopment nearby. I know that in my own town they have built 1200 houses on one side over the last 15 yrs and having run out of easy land they are now building another approx 900 houses on the other side of town on already reclaimed or to be reclaimed industrial land.

They should definitely prioritise Brownfield sites, it makes more sense and at the risk of crossing over into the public transport thread, this would be consistent with creating these urban areas where more people take public transport and ebikes rather than building in places that necessitate more car use.

Did you skip the OP? Brownfield *is* prioritised but there's nowhere near enough of it to meet demand.

Doesn't that depend how densely built it is?

rjsterry

Up to a point, but there are practical limits to density.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Up to a point, but there are practical limits to density.

Is the practical limit that people don't want to live in flats?

rjsterry

The map was produced by Lichfields, one of the leading planning consultancies.

https://lichfields.uk/content/insights/banking-on-brownfield

Pross

People seem keen to prove might point about general understanding of planning and development and repeating what they’ve read in the media.

There’s already a presumption in favour of Brownfield land. People tend to get confused because land that looks green is actually Brownfield as it has previously been developed. The land also has to be available for purchase (not everything is for sale) and be cost effective to remediate. There are loads of old colliery sites near me, quite a few have now been built on but you have to grout up all those old shafts. I’m still not sure I’d want to live on one. There’s also a Brownfield site that used to be a chemical re-processing plant.

Bribing locals who already have a house for the loss of value to their house from new developments is an odd suggestion. Did the people who built their houses compensate the houses that were already there? I’m not even sure there is evidence that new development affects house prices. Even if they did is it a bad thing, especially if prices are being pushed up by demand outstripping supply?

Whilst developers do land bank as they need to maintain a supply for future development it would be odd for them to hang onto land for decades. Ultimately they make money by building and selling houses so having a stash of undeveloped land serves little purpose. Chances are there are planning or technical reasons why the land isn’t getting developed. Land purchase isn’t something I know much about but I think a lot of land is purchased as an option pending planning.

The Tories promised a shake up of planning as part of their manifesto and it looked promising but then they caved to the NIMBYs who vote for them and dropped it (surprise, surprise). Even under the current system we have Councillors refusing applications that their own officers have told them meet the requirements of the Planning Regs in order to get votes but it often ends up just costing them a huge amount at appeal.

Developers are by no means angels and often cut corners / do the absolute bare minimum to get planning and maximise profit. Some are better than others. Ultimately though we need more housing and the process needs to be revised so that schemes that comply with planning policy don’t get kicked out to keep voters happy.

Sorry for the lengthy rant!

TheBigBean

My view is that I don't like sprawling suburbia which is designed around owning a car. Most of the US and Canada, for example. I think people need to live in more densely populated areas. Other people have other views.

focuszing723

...

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Up to a point, but there are practical limits to density.

Is the practical limit that people don't want to live in flats?

I don't want to live in a flat. Tried it, hated it. Neighbours on 8 sides.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

My view is that I don't like sprawling suburbia which is designed around owning a car. Most of the US and Canada, for example. I think people need to live in more densely populated areas. Other people have other views.

After university, I lived for six years in an isolated (rubbishly built and fantastically cold) house on top of a hill, overlooking Dartmoor. I resolved that if I moved somewhere with neighbours, it had to have all the facilities (shops, pubs, public transport) etc that I'd not had. Hence the old squidged-up bit of Topsham now being home, where it would be hard to squeeze in much more. The residents who thought that for ever more that the town would stay in glorious isolation with green fields separating it and Exeter were sadly deluded... it was all going to go, sooner or later. Having come from a village in Bristol that once was more important than Bristol, but was swallowed up by the upstart as a suburb in the 20th century, I could see what was going to happen to Topsham. I can understand why people want to keep things 'as they were', but the endless moaning about every bit of development really frustrates me.

focuszing723

Pross said:

People seem keen to prove might point about general understanding of planning and development and repeating what they’ve read in the media.

There’s already a presumption in favour of Brownfield land. People tend to get confused because land that looks green is actually Brownfield as it has previously been developed. The land also has to be available for purchase (not everything is for sale) and be cost effective to remediate. There are loads of old colliery sites near me, quite a few have now been built on but you have to grout up all those old shafts. I’m still not sure I’d want to live on one. There’s also a Brownfield site that used to be a chemical re-processing plant.

Bribing locals who already have a house for the loss of value to their house from new developments is an odd suggestion. Did the people who built their houses compensate the houses that were already there? I’m not even sure there is evidence that new development affects house prices. Even if they did is it a bad thing, especially if prices are being pushed up by demand outstripping supply?

Whilst developers do land bank as they need to maintain a supply for future development it would be odd for them to hang onto land for decades. Ultimately they make money by building and selling houses so having a stash of undeveloped land serves little purpose. Chances are there are planning or technical reasons why the land isn’t getting developed. Land purchase isn’t something I know much about but I think a lot of land is purchased as an option pending planning.

The Tories promised a shake up of planning as part of their manifesto and it looked promising but then they caved to the NIMBYs who vote for them and dropped it (surprise, surprise). Even under the current system we have Councillors refusing applications that their own officers have told them meet the requirements of the Planning Regs in order to get votes but it often ends up just costing them a huge amount at appeal.

Developers are by no means angels and often cut corners / do the absolute bare minimum to get planning and maximise profit. Some are better than others. Ultimately though we need more housing and the process needs to be revised so that schemes that comply with planning policy don’t get kicked out to keep voters happy.

Sorry for the lengthy rant!

It's not bribery, it's compensation for the inconvenience caused and possible loss in the value of their asset. Aren't the developers making money? Who are they bribing to get it?

Also, don't the developers want land? Well this might be an answer.

Try and see the other side too, you both (rjsterry) obviously have a vested interest.

You both regularly contribute on such threads.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

What are the affordable housing requirements under s106? I don't have an issue with new houses being built, my issue is that very little seems to be affordable for people on lower incomes or first time buyers. A new 20 home site near me has just been completed, nothing under £750k. I can name various developments within 10 miles that do not have a single house under £300k.

Are developers allowed to build affordable housing elsewhere to offset excluding it from another site?