'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff
Comments
-
Sure, but that is the developer having to find / use an alternative solution.briantrumpet said:
Though that isn't an absolute right, as compulsory purchase orders illustrate.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
Make the home uninhabitable and you have to pay, and go through the legal process if you're not willing to make a good offer.0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
Sure, but that is the developer having to find / use an alternative solution.briantrumpet said:
Though that isn't an absolute right, as compulsory purchase orders illustrate.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
Make the home uninhabitable and you have to pay, and go through the legal process if you're not willing to make a good offer.
Yes, agree, though I'm not sure how generous CPOs are... thinking HS2, and all that. My guess is that they aren't too stingy, to avoid too many delays in getting people to agree.0 -
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.0 -
You're using a single example where a wind farm developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system for large scale housing development is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.0 -
Hardly a broad sample.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You haven't provided any.
0 -
That's two of us not paying attention.
All you need to do is have a look at your local planning archive.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
We tend to get annoyed by the things that don't work out as we might have hoped, and overlook the many examples where stuff just happens without too much fuss or contention. I think the planning process, overall, is like that.
An analogy is with weather forecasting: the Met Office gets criticism from all sides when it gets some big weather event wrong to some degree, but we overlook the countless seemingly 'boring weather' days when all aspects of the forecast are spot on but unremarkable otherwise.0 -
Well put. Applies to everyone.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
We tend to get annoyed by the things that don't work out as we might have hoped, and overlook the many examples where stuff just happens without too much fuss or contention. I think the planning process, overall, is like that.
An analogy is with weather forecasting: the Met Office gets criticism from all sides when it gets some big weather event wrong to some degree, but we overlook the countless seemingly 'boring weather' days when all aspects of the forecast are spot on but unremarkable otherwise.
0 -
First.Aspect said:
Well put. Applies to everyone.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
We tend to get annoyed by the things that don't work out as we might have hoped, and overlook the many examples where stuff just happens without too much fuss or contention. I think the planning process, overall, is like that.
An analogy is with weather forecasting: the Met Office gets criticism from all sides when it gets some big weather event wrong to some degree, but we overlook the countless seemingly 'boring weather' days when all aspects of the forecast are spot on but unremarkable otherwise.
The Met Office thing came to mind as I've a very good (and intelligent) friend who absolutely hates the Met Office because they got a couple of weather forecasts wrong when he had some big events going on, years ago, and ever since then looks out for the forecasts which don't come to pass as predicted and says "Told you so.". All the good boring ones are totally overlooked.0 -
It's called confirmation bias. Every human being is susceptible.0
-
First.Aspect said:
It's called confirmation bias. Every human being is susceptible.
I agree, but is that just because it fits in with my prejudices?0 -
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
0 -
Someone will be along in a minute to complain about developers 'sitting on sites'.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So they initially wanted 100 houses and removal of all the mature trees, but would have settled for half as many while retaining some local amenity, to respect some local views?Pross said:
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
About 100 yards from here, there is space for 3 houses, and local development plan says our housing cluster can tolerate 3. Developer put in plans for 6 and was refused (no local opposition, btw).
Is there a common theme?
Fwiw there are various roles within our council that seem to amount to asking questions without any prior critical thinking. I ended up having to do an arboreal survey despite having no trees over or near the site I want to build an extension on, and over an existing conservatory footprint. My impression is the council tree guy asks the same question of each application regardless of merit, because its easier than reading any of the applications.0 -
No, all mature trees were always being retained. The rule changes after the first application meant that some of those trees had greater protection areas. The majority of the site was open scrub. I would agree that the original application was too dense but its not my field of expertise and those whose field it is (both applicant and planning authority) agreed that it was suitable. The 60 odd house scheme definitely wasn't dense and effectively kept half the site empty to protect the 'setting' of a listed building (the listed building is actually owned by the organisation that are selling the site). The 25 house scheme is a ridiculously low density IMHO and if it got permission it actually felt like it was wasting an opportunity to improve housing supply. I don't think it is a case of settling for half as many as trying to minimise their losses. As I said, they were arseholes anyway and I'm more than happy for them to lose their money. It's also a very technically challenging site so they'll find it expensive to build out or sell to more experienced developers.First.Aspect said:
So they initially wanted 100 houses and removal of all the mature trees, but would have settled for half as many while retaining some local amenity, to respect some local views?Pross said:
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
About 100 yards from here, there is space for 3 houses, and local development plan says our housing cluster can tolerate 3. Developer put in plans for 6 and was refused (no local opposition, btw).
Is there a common theme?
Fwiw there are various roles within our council that seem to amount to asking questions without any prior critical thinking. I ended up having to do an arboreal survey despite having no trees over or near the site I want to build an extension on, and over an existing conservatory footprint. My impression is the council tree guy asks the same question of each application regardless of merit, because its easier than reading any of the applications.
Anyway, you asked for examples of the planning process not being biased to developers and I tried to give you an example but ity obviously hasn't changed your preconceptions so I give up now.0 -
Pross said:
No, all mature trees were always being retained. The rule changes after the first application meant that some of those trees had greater protection areas. The majority of the site was open scrub. I would agree that the original application was too dense but its not my field of expertise and those whose field it is (both applicant and planning authority) agreed that it was suitable. The 60 odd house scheme definitely wasn't dense and effectively kept half the site empty to protect the 'setting' of a listed building (the listed building is actually owned by the organisation that are selling the site). The 25 house scheme is a ridiculously low density IMHO and if it got permission it actually felt like it was wasting an opportunity to improve housing supply. I don't think it is a case of settling for half as many as trying to minimise their losses. As I said, they were arseholes anyway and I'm more than happy for them to lose their money. It's also a very technically challenging site so they'll find it expensive to build out or sell to more experienced developers.First.Aspect said:
So they initially wanted 100 houses and removal of all the mature trees, but would have settled for half as many while retaining some local amenity, to respect some local views?Pross said:
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
About 100 yards from here, there is space for 3 houses, and local development plan says our housing cluster can tolerate 3. Developer put in plans for 6 and was refused (no local opposition, btw).
Is there a common theme?
Fwiw there are various roles within our council that seem to amount to asking questions without any prior critical thinking. I ended up having to do an arboreal survey despite having no trees over or near the site I want to build an extension on, and over an existing conservatory footprint. My impression is the council tree guy asks the same question of each application regardless of merit, because its easier than reading any of the applications.
Anyway, you asked for examples of the planning process not being biased to developers and I tried to give you an example but ity obviously hasn't changed your preconceptions so I give up now.
The developer bias is exemplified by the unlimited number of attempts and appeals, isn't it?Pross said:
No, all mature trees were always being retained. The rule changes after the first application meant that some of those trees had greater protection areas. The majority of the site was open scrub. I would agree that the original application was too dense but its not my field of expertise and those whose field it is (both applicant and planning authority) agreed that it was suitable. The 60 odd house scheme definitely wasn't dense and effectively kept half the site empty to protect the 'setting' of a listed building (the listed building is actually owned by the organisation that are selling the site). The 25 house scheme is a ridiculously low density IMHO and if it got permission it actually felt like it was wasting an opportunity to improve housing supply. I don't think it is a case of settling for half as many as trying to minimise their losses. As I said, they were arseholes anyway and I'm more than happy for them to lose their money. It's also a very technically challenging site so they'll find it expensive to build out or sell to more experienced developers.First.Aspect said:
So they initially wanted 100 houses and removal of all the mature trees, but would have settled for half as many while retaining some local amenity, to respect some local views?Pross said:
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
About 100 yards from here, there is space for 3 houses, and local development plan says our housing cluster can tolerate 3. Developer put in plans for 6 and was refused (no local opposition, btw).
Is there a common theme?
Fwiw there are various roles within our council that seem to amount to asking questions without any prior critical thinking. I ended up having to do an arboreal survey despite having no trees over or near the site I want to build an extension on, and over an existing conservatory footprint. My impression is the council tree guy asks the same question of each application regardless of merit, because its easier than reading any of the applications.
Anyway, you asked for examples of the planning process not being biased to developers and I tried to give you an example but ity obviously hasn't changed your preconceptions so I give up now.0 -
First.Aspect said:Pross said:
No, all mature trees were always being retained. The rule changes after the first application meant that some of those trees had greater protection areas. The majority of the site was open scrub. I would agree that the original application was too dense but its not my field of expertise and those whose field it is (both applicant and planning authority) agreed that it was suitable. The 60 odd house scheme definitely wasn't dense and effectively kept half the site empty to protect the 'setting' of a listed building (the listed building is actually owned by the organisation that are selling the site). The 25 house scheme is a ridiculously low density IMHO and if it got permission it actually felt like it was wasting an opportunity to improve housing supply. I don't think it is a case of settling for half as many as trying to minimise their losses. As I said, they were arseholes anyway and I'm more than happy for them to lose their money. It's also a very technically challenging site so they'll find it expensive to build out or sell to more experienced developers.First.Aspect said:
So they initially wanted 100 houses and removal of all the mature trees, but would have settled for half as many while retaining some local amenity, to respect some local views?Pross said:
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
About 100 yards from here, there is space for 3 houses, and local development plan says our housing cluster can tolerate 3. Developer put in plans for 6 and was refused (no local opposition, btw).
Is there a common theme?
Fwiw there are various roles within our council that seem to amount to asking questions without any prior critical thinking. I ended up having to do an arboreal survey despite having no trees over or near the site I want to build an extension on, and over an existing conservatory footprint. My impression is the council tree guy asks the same question of each application regardless of merit, because its easier than reading any of the applications.
Anyway, you asked for examples of the planning process not being biased to developers and I tried to give you an example but ity obviously hasn't changed your preconceptions so I give up now.
The developer bias is exemplified by the unlimited number of attempts and appeals, isn't it?Pross said:
No, all mature trees were always being retained. The rule changes after the first application meant that some of those trees had greater protection areas. The majority of the site was open scrub. I would agree that the original application was too dense but its not my field of expertise and those whose field it is (both applicant and planning authority) agreed that it was suitable. The 60 odd house scheme definitely wasn't dense and effectively kept half the site empty to protect the 'setting' of a listed building (the listed building is actually owned by the organisation that are selling the site). The 25 house scheme is a ridiculously low density IMHO and if it got permission it actually felt like it was wasting an opportunity to improve housing supply. I don't think it is a case of settling for half as many as trying to minimise their losses. As I said, they were arseholes anyway and I'm more than happy for them to lose their money. It's also a very technically challenging site so they'll find it expensive to build out or sell to more experienced developers.First.Aspect said:
So they initially wanted 100 houses and removal of all the mature trees, but would have settled for half as many while retaining some local amenity, to respect some local views?Pross said:
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
About 100 yards from here, there is space for 3 houses, and local development plan says our housing cluster can tolerate 3. Developer put in plans for 6 and was refused (no local opposition, btw).
Is there a common theme?
Fwiw there are various roles within our council that seem to amount to asking questions without any prior critical thinking. I ended up having to do an arboreal survey despite having no trees over or near the site I want to build an extension on, and over an existing conservatory footprint. My impression is the council tree guy asks the same question of each application regardless of merit, because its easier than reading any of the applications.
Anyway, you asked for examples of the planning process not being biased to developers and I tried to give you an example but ity obviously hasn't changed your preconceptions so I give up now.
No, they plainly haven't got anything like what they wanted, they still haven't got anything at all and it may well end that way. Your original argument on this was a developer continuing to apply for the same thing, in this case the developer has listened to the reasons given for refusal, amended their plans accordingly and re-submitted only to get told they haven't done enough oh, and by the way, here's something else we've thought of to stop you. On the second application, which the Committee refused 5:4, the Commitee was reminded they had to give a reason for refusal and then spent nearly an hour arguing amongst themselves to try to get a valid reason.
In the meantime the Council in question was 20% short of its then statutory requirement in 5 year housing supply. The Government has since helped them out on this by ditching housing supply requirements. In addition, all the proposed highway improvments associated with the original 100 unit scheme were still beingh offered even though it could have easily been argued that some were no longer required.
0 -
I'm not arguing that councils are competent, don't worry. Just that if you are part of a local opposition, there is no way to kill the application off. From their perspective, it's the same application, for the same thing by the same developer.
I can't tell whether the locals have a point and are trying to save a well loved and well used area or not, or whether somewhere else would be better for everyone. But if or when it goes through, the locals won't be able to appeal will they?0 -
It's more common for developers to walk away from a site than it is for them to appeal the decision. Appeals cost a fortune and they have to be pretty confident that they can win (i.e. that they are complying with planning policy and there are no valid reasons for the site being rejected). Are you advocating that once an application is refused that should be an end to it? Virtually nothing would be built if that were the case as Councillors would just refuse any applications where there were objections which, in some parts of the world, is literally every application.
0 -
I mean, they're not charities. If they can get 6 houses rather than 3, that pays for the project down the road that keeps getting refused despite everyone agreeing that they definitely need more housing in the area, and has so far made a 7 figure loss.First.Aspect said:
So they initially wanted 100 houses and removal of all the mature trees, but would have settled for half as many while retaining some local amenity, to respect some local views?Pross said:
I’ll give you an example. A site I've worked on for the last 5 years or so. It originally went in for planning after lots of discussion with various officers and a recommendation to approve. The initial discussions had addressed highway / transport issues, archaeology, ecology, arboriculture and various other constraints. Loads of vocal opposition and the Planning Committee refused the application. It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the rejection on the grounds of density and visual impact from memory. An amended scheme was drawn up taking account of the Inspector's comments and reasons for refusal, I think the number of houses dropped from over a hundred to 60 odd with large elements of green space retained (this was an infill site on an area of open space). Additional open space was being retained as in the meantime new rules had come in regarding exclusions around veteran trees. Officers recommended approval but again the Planning Committee turned it down, further reductions were made (down to around 50 with a greater percentage of affordable housing) but it got rejected against officer advice once more and it again went to appeal. There was a different Inspector who agreed that the amended scheme addressed the issues raised at the previous appeal but rejected the appeal for other reasons that the initial Inspector over which the original Inspector had raised no concerns.First.Aspect said:
I've used two, actually.rjsterry said:
You're using a single example where a developer has repeatedly failed to get consent as evidence that the system is biased towards developers. That's some strange logic.First.Aspect said:
Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.rjsterry said:
Let's try and break out of FA's rabbit hole of what's a pretty niche scenario and for which we only have very partial information. In general an application that proposed something as significant as making neighbouring properties uninhabitable would be dismissed out of hand. Developers do go to considerable effort to find a solution that minimises the impact on neighbours and mitigates what impact there is.Dorset_Boy said:
If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..rjsterry said:We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.
Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.
I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.
CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.
The most recent application was for 25 houses, it has been rejected on the basis of impact on the setting of a nearby listed building (as with the previous application despite having been reduced to the minimum number of houses the Council felt the site should accommodate) and impact on a badger sett (which had never been raised as an issue in the numerous previous applications). I'm no longer involved on the scheme but I assume it will again go to appeal. I'd be happy for the developer to lose again, I no longer work on the scheme and they were always complete arseholes but I would suggest the example shows how the system doesn't favour developers, this is hardly an isolated example although probably the worst one I've been involved with. They must be into a million plus in terms of professional fees and application fees to date and probably should have walked away from the site by now but presumably don't want to lose face. I'm pretty sure they'll lose money even if they do finally get an approval.
About 100 yards from here, there is space for 3 houses, and local development plan says our housing cluster can tolerate 3. Developer put in plans for 6 and was refused (no local opposition, btw).
Is there a common theme?
Fwiw there are various roles within our council that seem to amount to asking questions without any prior critical thinking. I ended up having to do an arboreal survey despite having no trees over or near the site I want to build an extension on, and over an existing conservatory footprint. My impression is the council tree guy asks the same question of each application regardless of merit, because its easier than reading any of the applications.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yep. I witnessed this near my parents house. Over a period of twenty years an application was rejected three times on so say greenbelt land. Then magically on the forth attempt hey presto it gets through.First.Aspect said:I'm not arguing that councils are competent, don't worry. Just that if you are part of a local opposition, there is no way to kill the application off. From their perspective, it's the same application, for the same thing by the same developer.
I can't tell whether the locals have a point and are trying to save a well loved and well used area or not, or whether somewhere else would be better for everyone. But if or when it goes through, the locals won't be able to appeal will they?
How can it be rejected three times then it gets through? The bloke picked up the land for next to nothing with no planning permission (greenbelt) then makes a killing.
Like I said vested interest and a myopic perspective from the regular posters on this topic.
It's a bit boring to be honest because they bring it up regularly.0 -
Fuck off back to wanking over Musk you twatfocuszing723 said:
Yep. I witnessed this near my parents house. Over a period of twenty years an application was rejected three times on so say greenbelt land. Then magically on the forth attempt hey presto it gets through.First.Aspect said:I'm not arguing that councils are competent, don't worry. Just that if you are part of a local opposition, there is no way to kill the application off. From their perspective, it's the same application, for the same thing by the same developer.
I can't tell whether the locals have a point and are trying to save a well loved and well used area or not, or whether somewhere else would be better for everyone. But if or when it goes through, the locals won't be able to appeal will they?
How can it be rejected three times then it gets through? The bloke picked up the land for next to nothing with no planning permission (greenbelt) then makes a killing.
Like I said vested interest and a myopic perspective from the regular posters on this topic.
It's a bit boring to be honest because they bring it up regularly.0 -
Blimey, how p1$$eyPross said:
censored off back to wanking over Musk you censoredfocuszing723 said:
Yep. I witnessed this near my parents house. Over a period of twenty years an application was rejected three times on so say greenbelt land. Then magically on the forth attempt hey presto it gets through.First.Aspect said:I'm not arguing that councils are competent, don't worry. Just that if you are part of a local opposition, there is no way to kill the application off. From their perspective, it's the same application, for the same thing by the same developer.
I can't tell whether the locals have a point and are trying to save a well loved and well used area or not, or whether somewhere else would be better for everyone. But if or when it goes through, the locals won't be able to appeal will they?
How can it be rejected three times then it gets through? The bloke picked up the land for next to nothing with no planning permission (greenbelt) then makes a killing.
Like I said vested interest and a myopic perspective from the regular posters on this topic.
It's a bit boring to be honest because they bring it up regularly.0 -
You live in Abergavenny. There a F-all development there, lol.0
-
It's a bit ironic to call other people's input "boring" and "myopic" considering the amount of spam you dump on here.0
-
Too busy f-ing up other parts of the Country.0
-
No I don't but yes there is (including several hundred houses, a hotel, a fast food restuarant and a cycle racing circuit I've worked on).focuszing723 said:You live in Abergavenny. There a F-all development there, lol.
0
