russbost
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 10:56 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by motorcycle_mayhem
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
I hope you thoroughly enjoy the pleasures of your kitcar on roads that are evermore congested & where new estates have no affect on local traffic,
GA or anything else ..................
Errr... 'pleasures'.... I personally extract no pleasure from the use of our roads. What few are not congested, are deathtraps due to the
actions of others or heavily policed by camera zealots. Even the 'local' roads are now made completely unusable in my environment due to
traffic calming measures. Good grief man, how can words such as pleasures and road use be combined.
The kit car gained slicks and lost it's road going 'ability' a long time ago, my last ever motorcycle was taken out by the usual
inattentive/distracted deathbox driver (and another part of me too). I am now entirely white van man.... except at weekends.
We need houses, we also need power generation facilities and factories, along with the political will to do it all. NIMBY's are destroying the
country, they, with the all the money, time and focus also are the ones that vote...
I agree with pretty much all you've said, but i still don't think developing airfields that are currently in GA use is the way forward,
& making it easier to develop said airfields is only going to make things worse.
[Edited on 22/10/15 by russbost]
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by karlak
The 2 hour planning meeting I recently sat though must have been part of a parallel universe I think, cos it didn't sound anything like what has
been described in this topic.
That's because, quite simply, all the real work and decisions happen before schemes get to the Planning Committee Meetings, so you guys never
get to see it. 
All the various reports and assessments I've mentioned, and the negotiations on S106's and S278's, are dealt with by professionals
(on both sides) and are agreed as far as can be as part of the Planning Application process, before the scheme goes to Committee.
The outcome of what is certainly months, and often years of preparatory work and negotiations is an 'Officer's Report',
including a recommendation as to whether the scheme should be approved or refused, which is presented to the Planning Committee.
The Planning Committee themselves are elected Councillors (AKA a bunch of interfering busybodies, clowns and muppets who like running other
people's lives), usually with no special understanding of Planning, architectural design, or development. I've known Planning Committee
Members who literally can't understand how to read drawings and had to have it explained to them which bits represented the houses, which
bits the roads, which symbols were trees, etc.!
They can, and do, often make completely random, politically motivated, or just plain bad decisions.
The one aspect of the Planning system that I'd agree isn't equitable, and is biased in the developer's favour, is that if the
Committee refuses a scheme that should have been approved, the developer can, and usually will, lodge an appeal that is then determined by a
very expert Appeals Inspector, who knows Planning Law inside out and assesses the scheme purely on its merits under Planning law and policy.
If, on the other hand, the Committee makes a bad decision to approve a scheme, then there's very little that can be done to overturn it.
There's a procedure called Judicial Review, but it's limited to assessing whether the correct legal procedure was followed, rather than
whether the correct decision was taken as a result.
The problem is, if you gave the right of Appeal on approvals, NIMBY's would appeal every single decision, and the system would grind to
a halt completely.
[Edited on 22/10/15 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
I find it amusing that if you oppose a development you are branded a NIMBY, well you can take yer name calling and shove it up yer bum, if it
wasn't for a bunch of NIMBY's in Kingseat then Scottish Coal would have been allowed to dewater Loch Fitty and dig an open cast mine right
next to the village contrary to a number of points in the planning guidelines on industrial developments next to residential areas. Continued
employment was used as leverage to eventually be granted permission for the development, then within hours of the councils decision being made job
losses where announced at st Ninians mine. Scottish Coal had obtained planning permission by deception.
The outcome of Scottish coal is well documented but had the people of Kingseat not been NIMBY's and stalled the dewatering of the loch as long
as possible we wouLd have been left with a 100m deep hole at the edge of the village with no capital funds to fix the issue as is the case over in
Ayrshire.
Just as that battle had been more or less put to bed as the new owners would not put up the bonds as agreed in the plans (they tried the employment
scam again but they got told to GTF.) a developer decided to build 1500 houses between Kingseat and Dunfermline. Now fair do's we need more
houses and I'm probably a NIMBY for not wanting Kingseat to become part of Dunfermline but here is the point that angered me!
The announcement for the plan for the 1500 houses was being put for considering to be included in the document for possible developmenst. Kingseat
community council had been building a path from Kingseat to Dunfermline which had mysteriously faltered and were informed that the developers of the
new houses would build the rest of the path, so basically the 1500 house development had already been approved by Fife council, there where a lot of
stuttering council officers and developers at that community council meeting when that little fact was pointed out to them, some palms must have been
well and truly greased.
It's corruption that really gets people's goat and makes them oppose developments when in reality they probably couldn't give a
damn, however as Sam states he acts in his employers best interest but I'm some sort of Luddite for acting in mine, strange world we live in!
Anyways the Kingseat issue is no longer a concern for me as I moved to another village, the call of a double garage with adjoining office and a
workshop you can get 4 cars in was enough to get me to move away from the prospect of living next door to an estate of ticky tacky little boxes
designed no doubt by a presumptuous eejit architect. 
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 09:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
It's corruption that really gets people's goat and makes them oppose developments when in reality they probably couldn't give a
damn...
Well, if it's any consolation to you (not that you'll believe me, I'm sure - NIMBYism and conspiracy theories seem to go hand in
hand), in 30-odd years in the business, I've never encountered any genuine corruption in the Planning system. Hell, the Planning Officer
I used to deal with on a lot of applications in Stroud - where for lack of suitable meeting rooms we often discussed applications in the
Council's cafe - would never even let me put his cup of coffee and slice of cake on my company expenses tab, bless him!
It's so rare that anyone in the industry will still know the name of John Poulson from a corruption scandal that occurred over 40 years
ago.
There are so many people involved in the decision-making process that the risks of being found out are simply too high to make it worth it, and if you
know your job properly, you don't need it - it's easier and cheaper to take an application to appeal than to try stuffing envelopes full
of cash. We usually go for costs at appeal, which is why most of the Planning meeting that Karlak attended will have revolved around the risks to the
Local Authority of exposing themselves to that potential.
The idea that it operates on 'backhanders' is, once again, pure fantasy and completely laughable to anyone who works with the
Planning system on a regular basis.
There IS certainly a lot of financial horse-trading on Section 106 agreements, but whether you like it or not, that's a perfectly legal part of
the process.
You might not like the idea, but the reason that developers win the great majority of their Planning applications at the end of the day is that they
understand Planning Policy and Planning Law, rather than spouting sh1te about the 'greenfield' status of what are and have always
been 'brownfield' sites, or whining on about things that are completely irrelevant (sorry, Karlak, but rightly or wrongly, Planning
Authorities are not allowed to take into consideration the effect on the value of you and your neighbours' properties when determining an
application).
If you want to win Planning arguments, you'll do it by becoming properly informed on Planning policy and procedures, not by signing up to
petitions written by the terminally clueless.
[Edited on 22/10/15 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
v8kid
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 09:30 PM |
|
|
Well I never thought I would hear myself saying this but I'm with Sam on this one.
Everything we do affects someone else we have to rise above our personal vested interests and look to the interests of the country as a whole
-that's why we have a civil administration which we, including the "nimbys", vote for. Either you agree with the majority vote or
get out to somewhere else.
Although a development may affect the established locals a little its a big deal to the new families trying to get a start in life. Do you really want
to deny youngsters a start in your community? Would you feel the same way if it was your kids trying to get a start in life?
If it is that big a deal just move on somewhere else you are more than welcome in Scotland we have plenty of uncontested roads and a healthy work life
balance. After all we have had our discussion and abided with it.(thankfully)
See you soon.
Cheers!
You'd be surprised how quickly the sales people at B&Q try and assist you after ignoring you for the past 15 minutes when you try and start a
chainsaw
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 11:33 PM |
|
|
Hi Sam
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
There IS certainly a lot of financial horse-trading on Section 106 agreements, but whether you like it or not, that's a perfectly legal part of
the process.
Horse trading is an understatement in the extreme, in the case of Kingseat community V Scottish Coal the Section 106 Agreement IIRC was used as a
threat that if the regional council refused the application in the case of the dewatering of Loch Fitty. i.e. Accept the proposal or if we go to court
there will be no 106 agreement. Though it was maybe the application of these bully boy behaviours that ultimately led to their downfall
I have to admit one of my managers once said to me "Geoff you're paranoid" my response was "or are you naïve" I Never
take anything at face value so I'd say that just because you've never witnessed corruption does not mean it does not go on, maybe just not
visible at your level of interaction, maybe it doesn't happen at all!
Here is a direct question for you presuming English planning and Scottish planning are similar enough...
How can a proposal that was not on the 10 year plan, that was introduced as "a discussion for inclusion in the 10 year plan", not as a
submitted application, be assumed to be going ahead by Fife councils planning bods? (Not the committee, but the proper planning dudes, long before
there was a submitted application)
Like I wrote earlier there was a distinct panic amongst them all when the anomaly was pointed out to them, I think they underestimated the
understanding of the community council, they forgot we had just come out of a battle with Scottish Coal and to quote Steve Earl "We learned a
few things from Charlie don't ya know", smacks of dodgy handshakes and clandestine meetings to me. (Now where's my tinfoil
hat...)
Regards
Geoff
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 23/10/15 at 06:56 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
Horse trading is an understatement in the extreme...
None the less, that's the way that the Planning system, quite legally and properly, works.
And yes, apart from the risk of picking up the developer's (very considerable) legal bill, the other problem for Local Authorities in ending up
at appeal is that the Appeals Inspector will take a very legalistic - ie. minimalist - view of of Section 106 Planning Obligations and
restrictive Planning Conditions; the Local Authority loses control of the negotiation of these items altogether.
We as developers are not idiots OR monsters... there are occasions where we'd rather ask the local community what they want from the Section
106, rather than make standard payments that then get lost in some meaningless pot of money that never gets spent because of Council bureacracy, and
it sounds as though the path you mentioned may be an example of this. We get what we want - their support for the application, to avoid the delays of
an appeal - they get what they want - community infrastructure that they otherwise couldn't afford to deliver.
But do bear in mind that:
a) What you see as 'bribes' under the S106/S278 system, we developers see as 'extortion'. After all, the occupiers of
our houses will be paying Council tax, and if Local Authorities managed their money properly, it is this that should pay for local services and
infrastructure.
b) These 'bribes' are (or should be) used to provide community facilities and infrastructure. They're not going into the pockets of
Councillors or Planning Officials.
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
Here is a direct question for you presuming English planning and Scottish planning are similar enough...
How can a proposal that was not on the 10 year plan, that was introduced as "a discussion for inclusion in the 10 year plan", not as a
submitted application, be assumed to be going ahead by Fife councils planning bods? (Not the committee, but the proper planning dudes, long before
there was a submitted application).
I'd need to do a lot of work reviewing their policy and decisions, but my first guess is that their Plan was out-of-date (they frequently are,
because LPA's don't have the resources to update them properly) or had been blown apart as flawed by a previous appeal; that they
therefore had no proper land allocation to deliver the housing numbers that they are required to; and that they therefore knew that the lack of
allocation in the Plan would not stand up at appeal.
In very simple terms, if a Local Authority has not made proper, deliverable land allocation to meet its target housing numbers, it becomes fair
game for Developers to bring forward viable sites outside the allocation.
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 24/10/15 at 11:13 AM |
|
|
Sam
Thanks for the reply, that does make sense.
It just seems a little odd how something that was being considered as a consideration was being bandied about as an actuality of planning consent, and
that the entire planning process with regards to consultation had been circumvented and hence open to accusations of corruption.
With regards to the section 106 agreements, whilst some of the communities demands would have been a direct cost to Scottish coal with regards to the
Loch Fitty dewatering, e.g. maintaining rights of way during the development (allowing A-B rather than actual path, common sense in an open
cast mine) some were extremely symbiotic, e.g. The community council needed hardcore for the path, Scottish Coal would be generating vast amounts of
the stuff so they agreed to give us the hardcore.
It all came to nothing though as Fife council right royally ballsed up the project (BTW all the funding was available due to the existing 106
agreement from St Ninians mine so it wasn't financial), and Scottish Coal went belly up
Oh, the relevance of my post to the thread is that the Scottish Coal dewatering of Loch Fitty had nothing to do with the extraction of coal, it was
not economically viable, it was all to do with the massive housing development that they wanted to put on the site after they had finished extracting
coal, some said changing the greenfield to brownfield status. The funny thing was when the proposal for the coal extraction was made everyone at the
meeting was fairly disgruntled but accepting of the facts until they showed the plan for the "return to previous" plan which included the
massive housing development that's when the pooh hit the air conditioner. Like it or not people would rather have an open cast mine next to
their village than a couple of thousand extra houses. What you see as NIMBYs are actually just people protecting their way of life, I find it odd that
people castigate communities for protecting their interests when defending themselves against an individual's pursuit of profit.
Once again I thank you for your consideration on my question.
Regards
Geoff
[Edited on 24/10/15 by locogeoff]
[Edited on 24/10/15 by locogeoff]
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 24/10/15 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff What you see as NIMBYs are actually just people protecting their way of life, I find it odd that people
castigate communities for protecting their interests when defending themselves against an individual's pursuit of profit.
I don't deny that housing developers are in pursuit of profit - they're a business after all (and contrary to popular belief, we
don't make massive margins - only the same as any other viable business)
But the irony is, the best way of winding up NIMBY's even more is to tell them you're putting a load of not-for-profit
('affordable'; Housing Association) houses on the site as well.
We have to build, typically, around 30% of the houses on our sites at break-even costs for the Housing Associations. It de-values both our new houses
and neighbouring existing properties to have them, reduces profit, and increases cost of the open market housing. But we provide them because
we're obliged to do so.
What the NIMBY's who turn up being rude to me at the pre-application public consultation meetings don't realise is that when they leave
their addresses on the negative feedback forms they fill in, I make special efforts to design the layout to cluster all the affordable around their
houses. 
I wonder how Russ would take it if 1 in 3 of the cars he builds had to be supplied, by law, at no profit to people who can't afford to buy
one?
Or that he had to make substantial cash contributions before building each car, to pay for the environmental damage it will cause, to build new roads
to carry it, and to subsidise local police, hospital and air ambulance because of the potential that his purchasers will need their services?
If the population keeps on growing, we have to find space for new houses somewhere. As I said with my first post, it's not houses
that drive cars, or use hospitals and schools, or take the local jobs...
The problem with 'protecting your way of life' is that you're not only preventing us 'greedy' developers from
running a business ... you're also preventing all sorts of other economic and social development that is necessary for the country as a whole,
and denying homes all the people who desperately need a place to live.
Selfishness, I think it's called? 
It' about time the tide is turned, and the NIMBY's are held to account for the damage they do to the economy and their effect on spiraling
house prices.
If you don't want ever increasing housing, control the problem at source - restrict population growth.
[Edited on 24/10/15 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
|
