Compensation when planning permission is granted after appeal

[Guy King]

The message from Lobster contains these words:

I must admit, though it may well not be the case in this instance, but I'm heartily fed up with this business of cramming tiny houses into small spaces.

As someone who's lived in a tiny house, they're effing horrid. There's no parking space, no room for a workshop, no room for cupboards in the house, nowhere to park a pram, nowhere for a piano, bookshelves are all but impossible, no space for the kids to run about indoors or out, no verges to buffer them from the traffic.

[Fred]

If building land wasn't made so scarce he wouldn't be making the gains he's likely to make. It's a shame local politicians with local self interests are allowed to have anything to do with planning. There should be more thought for those where owning is now out of reach.

[tony sayer]

In article , Guy King writes

Me too!. Planners seem to have it ingrained that there is no room left in the UK 'taint so!....

[Guy King]

The message from tony sayer contains these words:

Our local redevelopment was bemoaning the high density in parts of this estate - then proposing infill on all the other parts!

[john2]

that's *exactly* what politicians are for, to represent local self interests. Why should should one selfish builder be allowed to make a tidy profit at the cost of many surrounding properties decereasing in value.

john12

[Tony Bryer]

Because (a) this decrease in value almost never happens; and (b) because the developers are prepared to pay good money for sites because they can redevelop them and sell the new homes to other people who want to buy them. The democratic process totally fails the latter group - which includes a significant number of younger people who want to get on the housing ladder. You can only make money by replacing what is there with something else if the present supply does not accurately reflect demand. Conservative councillors, of all people, ought to understand the concept of market forces.

If the seller is anyone other than an owner-occupier, e.g. investor, executor, property company, then when the planning process interferes and stops such a sale the public purse loses to the extent of the tax that would have been paid on the gain. E.g. A developer offers £750K for your late grandad's house STPP. PP is refused. You have to settle for £600K. Exchequer loses £60K which has to come from the rest of us. To rephrase your question, why should his next of kin have to lose £90K to satisfy other people's selfish interests.

Please note that I am not talking about developments that cause measurable definite damage, rather the ones that are opposed for nebulous concepts like changing the character of an area.

[Chris]

In this case and on most of our projects no ones property will be devalued, we will in fact be adding value as the land is currently an awful eyesore. We are a small company and we try to add value to areas not take away, we have no interest in annoying neighbours, but inevitably it will occasionally happen. In this case the chap who sold us the land had, unbeknown to us gone out of his way to annoy his neighbours and we suffered by association with him.

[Dave Fawthrop]

| |john2 wrote: |> >

|> >

|> > If building land wasn't made so scarce he wouldn't be making the gains he's |> > likely to make. It's a shame local politicians with local self interests |> > are allowed to have anything to do with planning. |>

|> that's *exactly* what politicians are for, to represent local self |> interests. Why should should one selfish builder be allowed to make a |> tidy profit at the cost of many surrounding properties decereasing in value. |>

|>

|> john12 | |In this case and on most of our projects no ones property will be |devalued, we will in fact be adding value as the land is currently an |awful eyesore.

Developers are ATM building Rabbit Hutches on land adjoining our house which was a dry cleaning factory. This will *increase* the value of our property. We received the usual Notice of request for planning permission from the Council, and I supported the application.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

That must have been an interesting conversion?

[john2]

Well every side of the story has to be heard. Round here it's normal practice for the developer to blatently cram as many properties as physically possible into his first pplication to develop a small space, then gradually whittle it down over the years until it is approved. This way he can gauge local reaction.

john2

[Andy Hall]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:09:09 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote (in article ):

Possible. Are you just taking in laundry these days?

[Frank Erskine]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:09:09 +0100, Dave Fawthrop had this to say:

Not too far from here there's a plot of land which used to belong to a laundry and dry cleaning company.

It turned out that the land was heavily contaminated with chemicals from the works.

[Lobster]

That's pretty much standard practice with any planning application anywhere, which has the slightest chance of being controversial... developers apply for more than they actually want (ie higher/wider/more numerous etc etc) in the knowledge that whatever is asked for, it will be knocked back. It's just built-in negotiating power.

David

[Ian White]

However, there are variants to this cunning plan.

In a situation where the limit was going to be traffic turning into and out of the close from a main road, the developers didn't dare apply for more than they wanted to build. In the case I have in mind, they applied for 14 houses to minimise the traffic density. The water-colours looked really nice, plenty of space, established trees preserved, who could possibly object?

That got them the outline planning permission, subject to revision of the proposal to include some low cost housing. (How odd that they'd forgotten to do that.) OK, delete two of the existing mini-detached, shuffle the others closer together - oh dear, pity about those trees - plug in a row of four town houses, and voila! - a high-density development of 16 houses. Well surprise, surprise.

Darn right.

[Dave]

Can you name one that does not have his own, or his mates self interest at heart?

I am now RAOTFLMAO

Because he has mates on the local council. I have seen this in operation in my local council. The councillor in question wanted to expand his business property at the expense of the local residents.

Dave

[john2]

Interesting approach that would be productive round here where the lanes are barely wide enough for small horses. I don't think the local developer have reached that level of cunningness as yet.

john2

[Ian White]

They will, John, they will...

And when they do, watch out for other dirty tricks, like falsified pictures of traffic density on the main road (ours were taken at about

0600 on a summer's morning - we could tell from the shadows). Also watch out for county traffic officers who don't enforce the national requirements for safe sight-lines; and complacent planning officers who will let it all happen.

If the developer gets as far as receiving outline planning permission, it's already too late.

[Mark]

Here Here!!! (or is it Hear Hear?)

I don't think developers should carry all the blame. Guidelines from the powers that be only allow for tiny gardens and insufficent parking. I know of one planning application that was turned down because there were too _few_ houses!

Mark.

[<me9]

There's one being fought round here, involving demolishing a large house and substituting (originally) about 20 flats, now whittled down to about 8 houses.

A traffic survey was carried out, during the first week of the school summer holidays, when everyone seems to be away. It probably showed no congestion.

[Doctor Drivel]

Try the selfbuild forum on Yahoo groups. This is their sort of baby.