'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff

focuszing723

rjsterry said:

I've already explained that these things already exist. No idea why you think that a nearby development would reduce the value of a property. Often quite the opposite.

Like I said vested interest and you seem oblivious to see it from a different perspective.

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

rjsterry said:

I've already explained that these things already exist. No idea why you think that a nearby development would reduce the value of a property. Often quite the opposite.

Like I said vested interest and you seem oblivious to see it from a different perspective.

I don't work for a developer; nor do I work on large scale developments. In 21 years of practice not a single project has been on a greenfield site. So no, not a vested interest. This is just basic numbers. To meet housing demand greenfield sites will have to make up a significant proportion because there's simply not enough brownfield land, by a long way. Sure, there are better and not so good examples of development, and we can definitely do more of the better stuff and less of the not so good stuff. But none of that changes the basic numbers.

Or are we arguing that where someone likes to walk their dog or a nice view should trump people being able to find a home?

rjsterry

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

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.

Similar on my estate. There is a plan for 200 houses on farm land at the back of the estate. The idea is to build an access road by knocking down 2 houses on the adjacent road. There are only 2 access points to the estate as whole and less than 200 houses in total currently (the new access road to this estate would not act as a 3rd access point to the estate as a whole).

200 new houses would likely bring 400+ cars and no additional routes in, and one of the current roads in is a narrow country lane, 2 or 3 cars trying to pass creates a massive bottleneck. A few hundred more cars, with school runs and work commuters would create mayhem.

Obviously I don't know the specifics of the development, but if the local planning authority is doing its job, the developer will have to have provided information on the likely traffic impact both during and after construction. You can find this on your local authority website. Search for [name of council] planning search and there will be a link to their online archive. Then type in the address and if it's a big development there will be *lots* of stuff to sift through but a traffic study should be in there somewhere.

This is not to say that the developer or local authority get it right every time, but then the problem to be solved is improving the way new developments are integrated into the traffic network. The houses need to go somewhere and wherever that is is near somewhere else.

Part of the problem is people ignoring the initial public consultations and planning applications and only complaining when works start, by which time it is too late.

First.Aspect

The dissemination of information on planning applications is limited and lost in a forest. It is unreasonable to expect or interpret feedback on planning applications to actually reflect local opinions. Or needs.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

The dissemination of information on planning applications is limited and lost in a forest. It is unreasonable to expect or interpret feedback on planning applications to actually reflect local opinions. Or needs.

It's on a public website that is free to access. Notices are posted. The local authority contacts neighbouring land owners and residents associations. For big developments there are public consultation events. If people care so much the information is there.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

Thanks @rjsterry

Yes, this development is particularly badly thought out. Many people have been aware of it and the local MP, who does not live on the estate, wrote to all constituents urging them to respond to the consultation and raise concerns as it is so badly conceived.

I suspect it will still be approved though.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

The dissemination of information on planning applications is limited and lost in a forest. It is unreasonable to expect or interpret feedback on planning applications to actually reflect local opinions. Or needs.

It's on a public website that is free to access. Notices are posted. The local authority contacts neighbouring land owners and residents associations. For big developments there are public consultation events. If people care so much the information is there.

What percentage of people does it actually get to?

rjsterry

The people making the decision will be elected councillors advised by their planning department. I've seen planning officers recommend a scheme for approval - in other words it complies with the policies set out in the Local Plan* - and councillors still refuse it because it is unpopular in some way. Especially if local elections are coming up.On the plus side this is vaguely democratic, but I've also seen how poorly informed and easily swayed councillors can be. It's always easier to say no. It's only the big bad developers who will have wasted tens of thousands of pounds to get this far.

* A big document that sets out what development the council wants to see happen and where. These are deliberated and consulted on at great length and should be what all applications are judged against. You should be able to find yours on your local authority website under planning policy.

First.Aspect

Our lot approved a coal mine. A loaded lorry running down local High Street every 30 seconds for 10 years. But hey 200 jobs.

Sadly, there was nowhere in the UK for the high sulphur coal, so it didn't happen.

But it wasn't a stupid decision against all planning guidance. No not at all. The system works.

rick_chasey

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.

Wrong thread 😜

Stevo_666

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.

No.

But they could try harder to squeeze more in.

rjsterry

See the link to the report from which the map came. The figures are based on 'squeezing more in' - higher densities - already.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Our lot approved a coal mine. A loaded lorry running down local High Street every 30 seconds for 10 years. But hey 200 jobs.

Sadly, there was nowhere in the UK for the high sulphur coal, so it didn't happen.

But it wasn't a stupid decision against all planning guidance. No not at all. The system works.

Have you looked at the application documents, the officer's report and the councillors' deliberations or just jumping to conclusions?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

The dissemination of information on planning applications is limited and lost in a forest. It is unreasonable to expect or interpret feedback on planning applications to actually reflect local opinions. Or needs.

It's on a public website that is free to access. Notices are posted. The local authority contacts neighbouring land owners and residents associations. For big developments there are public consultation events. If people care so much the information is there.

What percentage of people does it actually get to?

Depends on the application, but certainly all immediate neighbours, parish councils, residents associations and a list of internal consultees from highways, etc. For the big stuff developers will hold public meetings in community centres and put up a display in the local library as showing evidence of public consultation will help an application. People might have to get off their arse and look at the notices posted on lampposts.

focuszing723

As officially the world's richest man, you would expect Elon Musk to hold one of the most prestigious property collections of the twenty-first century. The reality, however, is far from what is understandably assumed.

Despite having unrestricted and unrivaled access to some of the world's best homes, the business magnate publically vowed to 'own no house' and lives in a compact home worth $50,000 in Boca Chica, Texas.

'I am selling almost all physical possessions. Will own no house,' Elon tweeted(opens in new tab) in May 2020. Since then, he has offloaded his multi-million dollar estate portfolio – including an eco-friendly futuristic home, and actor Gene Wilder's estate in California.

https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/elon-musks-property-portfolio#:~:text=The billionaire revealed that his,(opens in new tab).

What a guy. Celebrate the greatness.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Second or more holiday homes.
Rental homes, especially empires.
The monthly expense of renting compared to mortgages of modest properties.
Inadequate amount of student accommodation in the form of halls of residence.

All a major problem in the UK, especially southern England.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Our lot approved a coal mine. A loaded lorry running down local High Street every 30 seconds for 10 years. But hey 200 jobs.

Sadly, there was nowhere in the UK for the high sulphur coal, so it didn't happen.

But it wasn't a stupid decision against all planning guidance. No not at all. The system works.

Have you looked at the application documents, the officer's report and the councillors' deliberations or just jumping to conclusions?

Yes. It was against the local plan and the application documents said the customer was Longannet Power Station, which had already been slated for closure. The councillors, in an ex coal mining region reasoned, "There will be another customer for the coal."

There wasn't.

Oh, and the developer was a UK company made up from the dregs of other UK surface coal mining companies, which had already left a legacy of clean up costs across the region for councils who didn't realise that if a company went bust, they weren't going to clean up after themselves.

Councillors are normally morons or wannabes or both. They will vote for what they will vote for, using their discretion. The planning officer's recommendations, as flawed as even they are, don't necessarily mean that much.

I accept that this is an extreme example of politics over riding common sense and local planning guidance, but the system is a load of crap, where only one side can appeal, and not many people have enough time in their lives to object or comment on plans anyway. Plus they reasonably don't think it makes any difference.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

See the link to the report from which the map came. The figures are based on 'squeezing more in' - higher densities - already.

I read the article, but found it lacking a bit in detail. Hong Kong has lots of very small flats on a tiny bit of land. It would therefore presumably be possible to knock down Milton Keynes and stick a few million people in the same space without the need for any green fields. Of course, that might not make economic sense and presumably some people might like their current homes in Milton Keynes, but it would be possible nonetheless.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Our lot approved a coal mine. A loaded lorry running down local High Street every 30 seconds for 10 years. But hey 200 jobs.

Sadly, there was nowhere in the UK for the high sulphur coal, so it didn't happen.

But it wasn't a stupid decision against all planning guidance. No not at all. The system works.

Have you looked at the application documents, the officer's report and the councillors' deliberations or just jumping to conclusions?

Yes. It was against the local plan and the application documents said the customer was Longannet Power Station, which had already been slated for closure. The councillors, in an ex coal mining region reasoned, "There will be another customer for the coal."

There wasn't.

Oh, and the developer was a UK company made up from the dregs of other UK surface coal mining companies, which had already left a legacy of clean up costs across the region for councils who didn't realise that if a company went bust, they weren't going to clean up after themselves.

Councillors are normally morons or wannabes or both. They will vote for what they will vote for, using their discretion. The planning officer's recommendations, as flawed as even they are, don't necessarily mean that much.

I accept that this is an extreme example of politics over riding common sense and local planning guidance, but the system is a load of censored , where only one side can appeal, and not many people have enough time in their lives to object or comment on plans anyway. Plus they reasonably don't think it makes any difference.

I have little sympathy for people who only take an interest after the decision. If they are as bothered as they claim to be, they should take an interest.
The mistake people make is submitting a load of ranty emotive stuff which is irrelevant from a planning point of view, rather than putting forward a reasoned argument based on the policies already in place. Also,play the game. Find the councillor on the committee and approach them.
I do think the standard of local councillors is very variable. I have seen council legal advice having to repeatedly remind councillors what they can and cannot do within their role on the planning committee, but if you pay peanuts...

Pross

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.

As part of the work the Council’s highway development control team will agree a scoping area and the developer’s transport consultant will have to model the junctions within that area to demonstrate they will be within capacity using predicted traffic flows from the development plus any additional traffic from other consented developments and growth factors for (I think) 15 years from the development opening. If the modelling shows the junctions going over capacity then mitigation will be required to be provided by the developer to increase capacity. This is the work the majority of my colleagues have been involved with everywhere I’ve worked in the past 25 years (I deal with the actual technicalities of designing the improvement works).

I’m not convinced by some of the modelling information e.g I got told by a colleague years ago that I had to make a roundabout entry lane 100mm wider as that was the difference between it working or not. It is also necessary to demonstrate the development is sustainable in transport terms although I think some Transport Assessment conclusions on this stretch things a bit (but the Council’s highways people should argue against it if they feel the same).

I agree with your second point and have said on here before that one development like Cranbrook near Exeter is better than numerous smaller developments as you can design liveable communities where people have everything they need on a daily basis close to hand and the scale makes it far easier to provide large scale infrastructure improvements. Unfortunately finding sites of that site is a challenge and they end up having even more objection than smaller schemes as people just take the view that big equals bad.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

See the link to the report from which the map came. The figures are based on 'squeezing more in' - higher densities - already.

I read the article, but found it lacking a bit in detail. Hong Kong has lots of very small flats on a tiny bit of land. It would therefore presumably be possible to knock down Milton Keynes and stick a few million people in the same space without the need for any green fields. Of course, that might not make economic sense and presumably some people might like there current homes in Milton Keynes, but it would be possible nonetheless.

MK is very much a creation of the ideas discussed in the other thread. There are some silly details: the grid intersections were originally supposed to be traffic light controlled junctions which would have dramatically slowed road speeds and meant that development could face these grid roads like high streets. But roundabouts were cheaper than traffic lights, and so the grid roads became boundaries that divided up the city.
There's quite a bit of work going into increasing the density of the city and overcoming it's reliance on car use.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Our lot approved a coal mine. A loaded lorry running down local High Street every 30 seconds for 10 years. But hey 200 jobs.

Sadly, there was nowhere in the UK for the high sulphur coal, so it didn't happen.

But it wasn't a stupid decision against all planning guidance. No not at all. The system works.

Have you looked at the application documents, the officer's report and the councillors' deliberations or just jumping to conclusions?

Yes. It was against the local plan and the application documents said the customer was Longannet Power Station, which had already been slated for closure. The councillors, in an ex coal mining region reasoned, "There will be another customer for the coal."

There wasn't.

Oh, and the developer was a UK company made up from the dregs of other UK surface coal mining companies, which had already left a legacy of clean up costs across the region for councils who didn't realise that if a company went bust, they weren't going to clean up after themselves.

Councillors are normally morons or wannabes or both. They will vote for what they will vote for, using their discretion. The planning officer's recommendations, as flawed as even they are, don't necessarily mean that much.

I accept that this is an extreme example of politics over riding common sense and local planning guidance, but the system is a load of censored , where only one side can appeal, and not many people have enough time in their lives to object or comment on plans anyway. Plus they reasonably don't think it makes any difference.

I have little sympathy for people who only take an interest after the decision. If they are as bothered as they claim to be, they should take an interest.
The mistake people make is submitting a load of ranty emotive stuff which is irrelevant from a planning point of view, rather than putting forward a reasoned argument based on the policies already in place. Also,play the game. Find the councillor on the committee and approach them.
I do think the standard of local councillors is very variable. I have seen council legal advice having to repeatedly remind councillors what they can and cannot do within their role on the planning committee, but if you pay peanuts...

As someone in the industry you've lost sight of how hard it is to comment meaningfully on planning applications. There is a reason professionals are employed to both submit and evaluate them. They frequently run to hundreds of pages and relate to dozens of legal texts.

Little sympathy?

Tell you what, have a go at something comparable outside of your own field and get back to us. Try applying for a European patent for example. Bet you couldn't even fill out the forms correctly.

That's what it is like.

Oh, and people get emotional because if it affects their homes its emotive.

No vested interest my arse.

Pross

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

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?

I think it is for local planning authorities to determine their policies but most sites I’ve worked on recently have been about 20-30% from memory. There used to be a rule that allowed a developer to reduce this in return for other contributions but I think that has been clamped down on now. LPAs like to see the affordable housing spread around the site these days rather than just cordoning of a corner in the worst part of the site and getting a social housing developer to build it out. Affordable is also a loose term and relates to the local market so it may be something like 80% of the rental price of an equivalent private rented property or 75% of the purchase price.

FWIW most of the residential work I’m doing at the moment is by housing associations so entirely social or mainly social with a bit sold as private sector.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

I think it is for local planning authorities to determine their policies but most sites I’ve worked on recently have been about 20-30% from memory. There used to be a rule that allowed a developer to reduce this in return for other contributions but I think that has been clamped down on now. LPAs like to see the affordable housing spread around the site these days rather than just cordoning of a corner in the worst part of the site and getting a social housing developer to build it out. Affordable is also a loose term and relates to the local market so it may be something like 80% of the rental price of an equivalent private rented property or 75% of the purchase price.

Cheers @Pross that's helpful to know.

Pross

focuszing723 said:

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.

If we apply your rationale then the god that is Elon Musk should be compensating us all for all the extra cars he is putting on the road that will reduce the re-sale of mine. It’s a bonkers suggestion. The developers buy their land from people who currently own it and want to sell it so I really don’t understand that part of the argument sorry.

FWIW I’ve recently designed a cycle racing circuit in my home town that the Council intends to build with funds mainly coming from S106 contributions set aside for leisure use.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Our lot approved a coal mine. A loaded lorry running down local High Street every 30 seconds for 10 years. But hey 200 jobs.

Sadly, there was nowhere in the UK for the high sulphur coal, so it didn't happen.

But it wasn't a stupid decision against all planning guidance. No not at all. The system works.

Have you looked at the application documents, the officer's report and the councillors' deliberations or just jumping to conclusions?

Yes. It was against the local plan and the application documents said the customer was Longannet Power Station, which had already been slated for closure. The councillors, in an ex coal mining region reasoned, "There will be another customer for the coal."

There wasn't.

Oh, and the developer was a UK company made up from the dregs of other UK surface coal mining companies, which had already left a legacy of clean up costs across the region for councils who didn't realise that if a company went bust, they weren't going to clean up after themselves.

Councillors are normally morons or wannabes or both. They will vote for what they will vote for, using their discretion. The planning officer's recommendations, as flawed as even they are, don't necessarily mean that much.

I accept that this is an extreme example of politics over riding common sense and local planning guidance, but the system is a load of censored , where only one side can appeal, and not many people have enough time in their lives to object or comment on plans anyway. Plus they reasonably don't think it makes any difference.

I have little sympathy for people who only take an interest after the decision. If they are as bothered as they claim to be, they should take an interest.
The mistake people make is submitting a load of ranty emotive stuff which is irrelevant from a planning point of view, rather than putting forward a reasoned argument based on the policies already in place. Also,play the game. Find the councillor on the committee and approach them.
I do think the standard of local councillors is very variable. I have seen council legal advice having to repeatedly remind councillors what they can and cannot do within their role on the planning committee, but if you pay peanuts...

As someone in the industry you've lost sight of how hard it is to comment meaningfully on planning applications. There is a reason professionals are employed to both submit and evaluate them. They frequently run to hundreds of pages and relate to dozens of legal texts.

Yet despite all that information that has to be produced to demonstrate compliance with the Planning Act and relevant planning policies I can guarantee that the consultants attending a public consultation will get accosted by someone who will tell them it’s all wrong, they know nothing as they don’t live there.

How much attention people pay to the information on the planning portal is unfortunately very much a geographic thing. If you have the misfortune to be trying to do anything in a middle class area full of boomers you’ll find yourself confronted with all sorts of spurious objections. I’ve seen sites where residents recorded all sorts of rare wildlife that the numerous professional ecologists for both the developer and council had seen no evidence, same site someone presented a lengthy mock coroner’s report of a fictitious death of a mother and her baby in a pushchair due to the dangerous existing road the development would take access from (it was steeper than ideal but had literally no injury accidents in the previous 40 years and the current residents all had to use it).

I’m not sure there are many countries where the general public get so much say in what can and can’t be built.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Our lot approved a coal mine. A loaded lorry running down local High Street every 30 seconds for 10 years. But hey 200 jobs.

Sadly, there was nowhere in the UK for the high sulphur coal, so it didn't happen.

But it wasn't a stupid decision against all planning guidance. No not at all. The system works.

Have you looked at the application documents, the officer's report and the councillors' deliberations or just jumping to conclusions?

Yes. It was against the local plan and the application documents said the customer was Longannet Power Station, which had already been slated for closure. The councillors, in an ex coal mining region reasoned, "There will be another customer for the coal."

There wasn't.

Oh, and the developer was a UK company made up from the dregs of other UK surface coal mining companies, which had already left a legacy of clean up costs across the region for councils who didn't realise that if a company went bust, they weren't going to clean up after themselves.

Councillors are normally morons or wannabes or both. They will vote for what they will vote for, using their discretion. The planning officer's recommendations, as flawed as even they are, don't necessarily mean that much.

I accept that this is an extreme example of politics over riding common sense and local planning guidance, but the system is a load of censored , where only one side can appeal, and not many people have enough time in their lives to object or comment on plans anyway. Plus they reasonably don't think it makes any difference.

I have little sympathy for people who only take an interest after the decision. If they are as bothered as they claim to be, they should take an interest.
The mistake people make is submitting a load of ranty emotive stuff which is irrelevant from a planning point of view, rather than putting forward a reasoned argument based on the policies already in place. Also,play the game. Find the councillor on the committee and approach them.
I do think the standard of local councillors is very variable. I have seen council legal advice having to repeatedly remind councillors what they can and cannot do within their role on the planning committee, but if you pay peanuts...

As someone in the industry you've lost sight of how hard it is to comment meaningfully on planning applications. There is a reason professionals are employed to both submit and evaluate them. They frequently run to hundreds of pages and relate to dozens of legal texts.

Little sympathy?

Tell you what, have a go at something comparable outside of your own field and get back to us. Try applying for a European patent for example. Bet you couldn't even fill out the forms correctly.

That's what it is like.

Oh, and people get emotional because if it affects their homes its emotive.

No vested interest my censored .

You seem to have ignored the second half of that sentence. Not understanding the information in an application is very different from ignoring it. In any case after the decision has been made it really is too late. That's the system that has been in place since 1948 and the basics are unlikely to change the.

Local Plans are written in fairly straightforward English with a minimum of jargon. They are nothing like legal texts. Councillors on planning committees have minimal training so there's nothing to be gained by complicating an application.

I get that people have a sense of ownership of their wider environment, but legally, their ownership stops at the front gate and that they have any say at all in what someone else does with another piece of land is more than they have in any other aspect of life. Imagine if you had to get your neighbours' approval for what car they drove.

Anyway, this wasn't really intended to be a dissection of the planning system itself (which certainly has its problems). If people are so dissatisfied with where and how land is developed for housing what alternatives would they suggest? Putting it all on a magical supply of brownfield land with no impact on anyone is not an option. We are currently experimenting with just not building enough to meet demand and that's not working either.

Or does everyone not care so long as it's not near them?

focuszing723

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

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.

If we apply your rationale then the god that is Elon Musk should be compensating us all for all the extra cars he is putting on the road that will reduce the re-sale of mine. It’s a bonkers suggestion. The developers buy their land from people who currently own it and want to sell it so I really don’t understand that part of the argument sorry.

FWIW I’ve recently designed a cycle racing circuit in my home town that the Council intends to build with funds mainly coming from S106 contributions set aside for leisure use.

Don't developers want land? This is a way they could encourage areas to agree to it. I don’t see people objecting to cars being built.

You're comparing apples and oranges and equating bonkers.

Pross

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

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.

If we apply your rationale then the god that is Elon Musk should be compensating us all for all the extra cars he is putting on the road that will reduce the re-sale of mine. It’s a bonkers suggestion. The developers buy their land from people who currently own it and want to sell it so I really don’t understand that part of the argument sorry.

FWIW I’ve recently designed a cycle racing circuit in my home town that the Council intends to build with funds mainly coming from S106 contributions set aside for leisure use.

Don't developers want land? This is a way they could encourage areas to agree to it. I don’t see people objecting to cars being built.

You're comparing apples and oranges and equating bonkers.

If you had land you wanted to sell me why should I have to pay off your neighbour as well?

If you gave others in your area an opportunity to object to people buying an additional car I can guarantee they would. ‘There’s not enough parking here already’ ‘I don’t object to them having a car but an SUV is far too big for this area’ ‘they should buy electric not petrol’ ‘we don’t want second hand cars devaluing our area’ etc.

rjsterry

...