'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff

focuszing723

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

You live in Abergavenny. There a F-all development there, lol.

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).

Lol, f-all compared to other areas. Don't want to trash your own area.

focuszing723

It's green fields near Abergavenny.

orraloon

Hang on peeps, I don't have any popcorn to hand...🤭

focuszing723

Pross said:

It's a bit ironic to call other people's input "boring" and "myopic" considering the amount of spam you dump on here.

I'm not on here twenty four seven akin to others who seem to manage it, with their windbagging.

focuszing723

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.830098,-3.0149328,14z/data=!3m1!1e3

Look, it's hardly fvckin London, is it?

focuszing723

Christ, lol.

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.830098,-3.0149328,14z/data=!3m1!1e3

Look, it's hardly fvckin London, is it?

Two golf clubs within walking distance, Waitrose and quiet roads to cycle on.
Much preferable to that there London.

monkimark

Does anyone walk to a golf course?

Pross

Not sure why he keeps mentioning the place, I was born there but live on the edge of a city miles away from there. I hope Musk's self-navigation systems are more geographically competent.

pblakeney

monkimark said:

Does anyone walk to a golf course?

I do. Why not? It's only 300m from my front door.
I also walk round the course. I'm not a lazy fecker.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

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.

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..

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.

CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.

Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.

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.

I've used two, actually.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

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.

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..

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.

CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.

Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.

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.

I've used two, actually.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

You're starting from a presumption against any development. How do you think your house got built?

rjsterry

focuszing723 said:

Pross said:

focuszing723 said:

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?

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.

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.

censored off back to wanking over Musk you censored

Blimey, how p1$$ey

Seems entirely fair to me. You're free to ignore the thread if not to your taste.

First.Aspect

Blimey I've only been gone an hour or two.

focuszing723

First.Aspect said:

Blimey I've only been gone an hour or two.

Careful, in two hours they could push through a massive sprawling housing development. One they wouldn't be seen dead in.

focuszing723

Right, I will leave you to you're echo chamber.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

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.

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..

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.

CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.

Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.

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.

I've used two, actually.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

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.

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..

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.

CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.

Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.

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.

I've used two, actually.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

You're starting from a presumption against any development. How do you think your house got built?

To house farm labourers?

You missed that I didn't personally object to any of the examples I've given. They were just all ill conceived in one way or another.

First.Aspect

I tell a lie, I objected to what would have been Europe's largest open cast coal mine.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

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.

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..

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.

CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.

Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.

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.

I've used two, actually.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

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.

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..

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.

CPOs are only available to public authorities, not private developers.

Don't know why you think it's a rabbit hole. It is just a perspective that the planning process is developer biased.

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.

I've used two, actually.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

You're starting from a presumption against any development. How do you think your house got built?

To house farm labourers?

You missed that I didn't personally object to any of the examples I've given. They were just all ill conceived in one way or another.

Sure, that's development. To be clear, I certainly don't think developers always get it right and some of them really take the p*** in terms of visualisations versus built reality. Some of those refusals are fully deserved. Some are not. Either way, locations for new housing are needed and they cannot all go 'somewhere else'.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

I tell a lie, I objected to what would have been Europe's largest open cast coal mine.

👍

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1622287053235916802?s=46&t=MNp1O36M6j2mFvKzgKo_VQ

As long as all those rapeseed fields are protected 🙄🙄.

Pross

We’re now onto our 6th Minister for Housing in 12 months and 15th since the 2010 election. Shambles.

rjsterry

Saves having to actually address the issues.

surrey_commuter

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

As someone who grew up there I was intrigued. There's already been a huge amount of building, some on green belt, since I were a lad.

They are building 2000 of the 5000 on green belt land. But frankly Hook Road Arena - the biggest site - has always been brown and it is not much of an amenity. If they built houses and preserved some park land in the development it would be used more as park land.

Same goes for at least one of the other little parcels they've allocated. Only a few acres and already surrounded on all sides by development.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

As someone who grew up there I was intrigued. There's already been a huge amount of building, some on green belt, since I were a lad.

They are building 2000 of the 5000 on green belt land. But frankly Hook Road Arena - the biggest site - has always been brown and it is not much of an amenity. If they built houses and preserved some park land in the development it would be used more as park land.

Same goes for at least one of the other little parcels they've allocated. Only a few acres and already surrounded on all sides by development.

Most of the green belt is a farm between existing developments so I really do not see that as a loss of amenity.

Hook arena I am more bothered about as it is the venue for a magnificent fireworks display.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

As someone who grew up there I was intrigued. There's already been a huge amount of building, some on green belt, since I were a lad.

They are building 2000 of the 5000 on green belt land. But frankly Hook Road Arena - the biggest site - has always been brown and it is not much of an amenity. If they built houses and preserved some park land in the development it would be used more as park land.

Same goes for at least one of the other little parcels they've allocated. Only a few acres and already surrounded on all sides by development.

Most of the green belt is a farm between existing developments so I really do not see that as a loss of amenity.

Hook arena I am more bothered about as it is the venue for a magnificent fireworks display.

I do believe that wins the first world problems comment of the week competition. 🤣

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

As someone who grew up there I was intrigued. There's already been a huge amount of building, some on green belt, since I were a lad.

They are building 2000 of the 5000 on green belt land. But frankly Hook Road Arena - the biggest site - has always been brown and it is not much of an amenity. If they built houses and preserved some park land in the development it would be used more as park land.

Same goes for at least one of the other little parcels they've allocated. Only a few acres and already surrounded on all sides by development.

Most of the green belt is a farm between existing developments so I really do not see that as a loss of amenity.

Hook arena I am more bothered about as it is the venue for a magnificent fireworks display.

I grew up literally across the road. And okay, I moved away from the area permanently over 30 years ago, but honestly, all I remember about Hook Road Arena was jogging around it with my Dad telling me to run faster, and the occasional dog poo. I can never recall it actually being used for an event, or any other human beings.

I've not seen the plans, but I'd expect they would retain the arena itself, for the horse faced people who like horses. And you could blow some things up there in November if you still wanted.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

As someone who grew up there I was intrigued. There's already been a huge amount of building, some on green belt, since I were a lad.

They are building 2000 of the 5000 on green belt land. But frankly Hook Road Arena - the biggest site - has always been brown and it is not much of an amenity. If they built houses and preserved some park land in the development it would be used more as park land.

Same goes for at least one of the other little parcels they've allocated. Only a few acres and already surrounded on all sides by development.

Most of the green belt is a farm between existing developments so I really do not see that as a loss of amenity.

Hook arena I am more bothered about as it is the venue for a magnificent fireworks display.

I do believe that wins the first world problems comment of the week competition. 🤣

it is very old school with a travelling fair and the stench of fired onions, burgers and weed from the wannabe surrey ganstas.

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

surrey_commuter said:

Epsom have released plans to build 5,000 homes on green belt land.

Interestingly Grayling has released architects plans to show they could be built on brownfield sites.

I suspect the flaw in his plan is that these are trading estates and he proposes keeping all the businesses there by increasing density.

As someone who grew up there I was intrigued. There's already been a huge amount of building, some on green belt, since I were a lad.

They are building 2000 of the 5000 on green belt land. But frankly Hook Road Arena - the biggest site - has always been brown and it is not much of an amenity. If they built houses and preserved some park land in the development it would be used more as park land.

Same goes for at least one of the other little parcels they've allocated. Only a few acres and already surrounded on all sides by development.

Most of the green belt is a farm between existing developments so I really do not see that as a loss of amenity.

Hook arena I am more bothered about as it is the venue for a magnificent fireworks display.

I do believe that wins the first world problems comment of the week competition. 🤣

it is very old school with a travelling fair and the stench of fired onions, burgers and weed from the wannabe surrey ganstas.

Oh, wait, is that where the circus used to set up? Before moving to Hampton Court after a. Ouple of weeks....

Pross

Epsom's Brownfield register only has sites listed for around 740 houses (with only one site capable off proving more than 100 houses). Their housing supply requirement for 2017-2020 was 1519 and they delivered 512. It's no wonder they need to be building on Greenfield / Greenbelt.