Airfields are not "Brownfields"
russbost - 20/10/15 at 07:24 AM
Guys, I know this is somewhat OT, but every site they build more houses on without putting new roads in to relieve congestion makes our little bit of
the planet that more more crowded & frustrating to drive around.
To be brief airfields ALWAYS had "greenfield" status when it came to planning permission, until a few years ago when they opened up
"brownfield" status & "accidentally" opened the loophole that put airfields in as brownfield sites, now I don't know how
many of you take an interest in GA, but even simply on the basis mentioned above this is not a good idea, they've said it was an accident,
they've said it would be changed, but it's been over a decade now & still the same, in that time we have lost a number of airfields to
housing estates & no doubt a few people have made a fortune on the sale of the land which has gone from worth "not much" to
"astronomical"!
Please sign the petition it would be great to get it up to 100,000 signatures, if you feel strongly about it please share it on facebook/twitter etc;
I have
Petition Link
mackei23b - 20/10/15 at 07:51 AM
Signed
There was a danger of losing our local airfield recently, some great planes get their annuals done there, in addition to some interesting aircraft
being rebuilt including several Stearmans and there was a Spitfire being rebuilt that came form Canada.
Cheers
Ian
HowardB - 20/10/15 at 08:13 AM
signed too,..
karlak - 20/10/15 at 08:21 AM
We have just learned that our incompetent Council have approved the field at the bottom of my garden for 240 houses, this on top of the 500+
properties already being built in our village. This will increase our population by 40% or so.
The reason ? We are apparently well set with a Doctors, Schools and other infrastructure. Hmm,, yes infrastructure that can just about manage with
what we have at the moment. I think the council called our village an "area of minor services", which basically means they can stuff us
with more houses.
The other Reason ?
Central Bedfordshire Council has no long term housing plan, which is bizarre, because I wonder what the planning committee are being paid for ? So,
we have huge property developers coming along and offering eye watering amounts of money to Farmers for their field (which is what happened to us).
The council object at first, but have lost 3 high appeals to the UK planning officer because they have no plan, this has cost them dearly in court
costs ! At the meeting for our development I overheard someone saying that the Finance director had actually had a word with planning not to reject
it, because they cant afford another court battle that they will lose.
Ironically, the other side of this farmers field is an airfield, which I have always liked as they have some nice planes come in from time to time. I
actually am a little surprised they allowed building in this field as any plane losing power on take off has now lost a huge area to put down, this
only happened a few years ago and they put the plane down on the opposite side on the runway to this field. This view will now be lost as I will just
see another bunch of soulless houses, built on the cheap to maximise profits. So we are stuck with a view of a housing estate instead of open fields
and an increase in traffic and everything that comes with it.
What was apparent is that the public have no say in these matters. Our development here had almost 400 objections, which I am told is very high. This
in the past would have had a lot of sway in the outcome of any decision, but with councils diminishing budgets and in our case committees that cant
organise or plan anything for the future it seems that these things are pretty much a foregone conclusion.
[Edited on 20/10/15 by karlak]
mkeats02 - 20/10/15 at 11:36 AM
Karlak, thought you talking about Eastleigh Borough council for a minute there, same story in South Hampshire, all farms being turned into a mass
urban sprawl adding to infrastructure already at breaking point.
Petition signed..
tims31 - 20/10/15 at 12:29 PM
Signed
kj - 20/10/15 at 01:21 PM
signed.
jimmyjoebob - 20/10/15 at 03:26 PM
signed :-)
Smoking Frog - 20/10/15 at 05:17 PM
Signed
JeffHs - 20/10/15 at 07:06 PM
Done
We lost Hucknall this year and were evicted in February.
Ben_Copeland - 20/10/15 at 07:59 PM
Their trying to do it to Manston Airport atm. So many dirty tricks and money changing hands it's unreal.
Compulsory purchase order was promised but the same council are making it near impossible for the buyer to actually buy it and keep the airport
open.
[Edited on 20/10/15 by Ben_Copeland]
Sam_68 - 20/10/15 at 08:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...every site they build more houses on without putting new roads in to relieve congestion makes our little
bit of the planet that more more crowded & frustrating to drive around.
I've been designing houses for well over 30 years, but I've yet to come up with one that can drive a car. Or visit the doctor, or use the
local school. What do you think I'm doing wrong, Russ? 
Houses don't increase congestion, or swell the population. They just provide somewhere to live for people who already exist.
Most planning applications come with enormous 'Section 106' payments (AKA legalised extortion) attached to them; it may have escaped your
notice, but in these times of austerity measures on public spending, just about the only new infrastructure that's going in (yes,
including roads, Russ) is the stuff that's being funded directly by developers.
Prevent development and you don't prevent additional congestion or pressure on public services - those are generated by people, not houses
- all you do is force house prices to spiral out of everyone's reach due to basic laws of supply and demand, and starve the one source of
infrastructure funding that's still available.
Of course, it's the 'our little bit of the planet' that everyone is really worried about. Everyone wants people to have
somewhere to live - just so long as it's nowhere close to where they are. 
Surrey Dave - 20/10/15 at 08:54 PM
Bit rich from the luxury of the COTSWOLDS!!!
locogeoff - 20/10/15 at 09:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
I've been designing houses for well over 30 years, but I've yet to come up with one that
can accomodate a modern car in the garage?
Sam_68 - 20/10/15 at 10:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
...can accomodate a modern car in the garage?
No, that's easy, and I've designed and built plenty.
Your problem is that you can't afford one because:
a) They require bigger plots, which are expensive because land prices are inflated by the NIMBYs preventing development wherever they can, and;
b) You should have worked harder at school. 
Sam_68 - 20/10/15 at 10:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Surrey Dave
Bit rich from the luxury of the COTSWOLDS!!!
Does the fact that I've built houses on several former airfields IN the Cotswolds count for me, or against me?
Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference to the sort of rabid, foamy-at-the-mouth, Daily Mail-reading NIMBY's that get worked up at
this sort of thing, but the basis of that petition is quite simply incorrect, anyway.
'Brownfield' is a colloquial expression. The correct Planning terminology is 'previously developed land', and the legal/Planning
definition for it, and hence its development status, has never changed.
What the ill-informed people who have started that petition are getting themselves in a tizzy over is a re-writing of the Planning Policy Guidance.
The old Planning Policy Guidance note on on Housing (known as PPG3) said:
"However, this does not mean that the whole area of the curtilage should therefore be redeveloped. For example, where the footprint of a
building only occupies a proportion of a site of which the remainder is open land (such as at an airfield or a hospital) the whole site should not
normally be developed to the boundary of the curtilage. The local planning authority should make a judgement about site layout in this context,
bearing in mind other planning considerations, such as policies for the protection of open space and playing fields or development in the countryside,
how the site relates to the surrounding area, and requirements for on-site open space, buffer strips, landscaped areas, etc."
The whole point of the new Planning Policy Statement on Housing, which replaced it ( known as PPS3) was to simplify the document in its
entirety, and the bit that deals with Previously Developed Land now says:
"There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the
curtilage should be developed."
Certainly, the specific examples of airfields and hospitals have been omitted, but the same basic principle still stands. Airfields and
Hospitals were only quoted in PPG3 as examples, because they are a readily understood and typical form of previous development where the
developed area is only a small part of the overall curtilage. They might as well have used schools, with their playing fields, military barracks or
open prisons - all equally valid, and all STILL subject to the same considerations in Planning terms.
To suggest that airfields and hospitals once had some sort of special, intrinsically 'protected' or 'greenfield' status is
complete and utter bollocks, as is the suggestion that their status in Planning law has changed.
IT HASN'T.
Hope that helps. 
russbost - 21/10/15 at 07:14 AM
"I've been designing houses for well over 30 years, but I've yet to come up with one that can drive a car. Or visit the doctor, or use
the local school. What do you think I'm doing wrong,"
You're doing nothing wrong, however to suggest that building a significant no. of houses in a given area where formerly there were none is not
going to change traffic patterns is just "plane" (geddit! ) daft - our roads are heavily congested at almost any time of day, worse down
here than up North, but still bad as soon as you head towards a city up there, you put up a new housing estate & bingo, more cars in that specific
area, more traffic around the shops, schools, doctors etc., unfortunately it has NO significant reduction in traffic anywhere else as the chances of a
whole given load of people relocating to the new housing seem pretty slim!!!
I'm not a NIMBY I don't have an airstrip in my back garden (if I did that would at least solve the problem at one end of the journey), but I
don't want to see sites which were originally agricultural, were redesignated as an airfield, which involved building a few buildings &
possibly roads in what is a sizeable area & continuing to provide a habitat for all sorts of animals, & then suddenly, because it has lost
it's greenbelt status (which it most certainly did hold previously, & despite your previous post the laws HAVE changed) it can have a housing
estate put up on it - how can that possibly be right?
Sam_68 - 21/10/15 at 12:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by russbost... to suggest that building a significant no. of houses in a given area where formerly there were none is
not going to change traffic patterns is just "plane" (geddit! ) daft
And a significant piece of documentation that supports any Planning Application is a 'Transport Assessment', which surveys and assesses
demands on local roads infrastructure. If it's not adequate, the application will be refused unless the developer pays for the necessary upgrade
works (Google 'Section 278 agreements' ), phased to work with the grown of the developement (for example, there may be 'trigger
points' built into the conditions of the approval that say that ceratin works have to be implemented by the 1st, 50th, 100th, or whatever,
occupation of dwellings on the site).
Ditto local services like schools and healthcare infrastructure - paid for by means of legal agreements known as a 'Section 106's'.
Along with an awful lot of houses, I've been responsible for the constructuion of numerous new roads, schools, healthcare clinics,
community centres, off-site road improvements, etc. etc. Even contruibutions for the upgrade of loacl cemetaries, because of all the extra dead people
my developments will apparently be generating. None of this would have happened if it weren't for the evil, money-grabbing developers who dare to
consider building new homes for people in your locality.
But all this is completely irrelevant to your original post: contrary to the beliefs of whichever f***wit originally submitted that petition, there
has NEVER been any greenfield status to airfields and the situation has not changed.
Airfields have ALWAYS been brownfield sites, and Planning Authorities have ALWAYS had to consider the appropriate level of development to allow on
them, compared to their context and previous amount of development.
You're petitioning to reverse a 'change' that never happened.
russbost - 21/10/15 at 01:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by russbost... to suggest that building a significant no. of houses in a given area where formerly there were none is
not going to change traffic patterns is just "plane" (geddit! ) daft
And a significant piece of documentation that supports any Planning Application is a 'Transport Assessment', which surveys and assesses
demands on local roads infrastructure. If it's not adequate, the application will be refused unless the developer pays for the necessary upgrade
works (Google 'Section 278 agreements' ), phased to work with the grown of the developement (for example, there may be 'trigger
points' built into the conditions of the approval that say that ceratin works have to be implemented by the 1st, 50th, 100th, or whatever,
occupation of dwellings on the site).
Ditto local services like schools and healthcare infrastructure - paid for by means of legal agreements known as a 'Section 106's'.
Along with an awful lot of houses, I've been responsible for the constructuion of numerous new roads, schools, healthcare clinics,
community centres, off-site road improvements, etc. etc. Even contruibutions for the upgrade of loacl cemetaries, because of all the extra dead people
my developments will apparently be generating. None of this would have happened if it weren't for the evil, money-grabbing developers who dare to
consider building new homes for people in your locality.
But all this is completely irrelevant to your original post: contrary to the beliefs of whichever f***wit originally submitted that petition, there
has NEVER been any greenfield status to airfields and the situation has not changed.
Airfields have ALWAYS been brownfield sites, and Planning Authorities have ALWAYS had to consider the appropriate level of development to allow on
them, compared to their context and previous amount of development.
You're petitioning to reverse a 'change' that never happened.
Sam, do you actually believe what you have just written? I have been involved with many planning proposals over the years & have seen many
contrary, contradictory & downright stupid plans passed, so if you truly believe the above, then you must be living in cloud cuckoo land, far be
it from me to suggest that anyone might ever be biased by the enormous sums of money that can be involved!
Yes, airfields have always been brownfield sites, so perhaps my original post was not correctly worded, would you like me to amend it to read
"airfields should not be regarded as brownfields"?, however, they were, under the previous legislation, REGARDED & TREATED as greenfield
sites, & that is what has changed - I believe about 13 years ago & there have been a number of promises to amend the legislation that changed
it & this has never been done. I don't dispute that the petition may be incorrectly worded, I didn't write it! However, the LAA &
CAA have both requested us to write to our MP's etc. with regard to the changes, so if you believe no change has happened I can only suggest have
a chat with the LAA & CAA & see why they think it has. To call the original submitter of the petition a f***wit (obviously that would be
fastwit?) seems a little harsh to say the least, & there have been many airfield closures over the past decade or so which I don't believe
would have happened without the aforementioned changes taking place.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is NOT easier to get planning permission on virtually ANY site nowadays than it was 10 or 15 years ago, simply
due to the pressure of needing additional housing - yes we need more houses, do we want them built on airfields? - well judging by the other posters
responses I would say that's a definite NO from those on here!
SJ - 21/10/15 at 02:15 PM
quote:
And a significant piece of documentation that supports any Planning Application is a 'Transport Assessment', which surveys and assesses
demands on local roads infrastructure. If it's not adequate, the application will be refused unless the developer pays for the necessary upgrade
works (Google 'Section 278 agreements' ), phased to work with the grown of the developement (for example, there may be 'trigger
points' built into the conditions of the approval that say that ceratin works have to be implemented by the 1st, 50th, 100th, or whatever,
occupation of dwellings on the site).
Ditto local services like schools and healthcare infrastructure - paid for by means of legal agreements known as a 'Section 106's'.
Sam you should be on the stage with comedy like that! Do you really believe any of that is ever actually taken account of?
The part of North London I just moved out of was already massively challenged in terms of roads, schools, hospitals etc. I've not seen any new
ones being built since thousands of extra flats were constructed in a 2 mile radius.
Sam_68 - 21/10/15 at 05:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
I have been involved with many planning proposals over the years & have seen many contrary, contradictory & downright stupid plans passed, so
if you truly believe the above, then you must be living in cloud cuckoo land, far be it from me to suggest that anyone might ever be biased by the
enormous sums of money that can be involved!
Then you need to speak to your elected members.
I freely acknowledge that many of them are as ill-educated and incompetent in Planning matters as (no disrespect) you yourself are, and yes, when
that's the case, professionals such as myself will run rings round them in the best interests of our employers. Can you blame us for that?
We have a job to do, and we do it to the best of our ability. The 'system' is actually remarkable fair and equitable, if you've got
competent people administering and taking decisions based upon it.
Similarly, if you're not seeing the £millions in S106 contributions from developers being translated into the infrastructure it was intended to
pay for, you need to speak to the Local Authorities who are the recipients of that money...
You get the government you deserve.
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...however, they were, under the previous legislation, REGARDED & TREATED as greenfield sites, &
that is what has changed
NO THEY WERE NOT
That's an absolute fallacy. I was building on old airfields and hospitals 30 years ago. I'm still building on old airfields
and hospitals, and I can tell you that the planning approach and constraints haven't altered one iota.
Actually, that's a lie: the two big things that have changed (but on all sites, not just airfields) is that we're now expected to provide
on-site SUDs that can mean there's a lot more green space on the site than we'd have had to provide in the old days, and we now have things
called 'Landscape Visual Impact Assessments' that give a lot more analysis to the intensity and visibility of development in the surrounding
landscape.
The formula for calculating open space requirements (known as 'the 6-acre standard' ) hasn't changed since Noah were a lad, though.
But lets be clear: they ALWAYS HAVE been treated as 'brownfield' land.
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...Are you seriously suggesting that it is NOT easier to get planning permission on virtually ANY site
nowadays than it was 10 or 15 years ago...
HELL YES!!!
I most certainly AM!!!
I can remember (back when I were a lad, and all this were green fields... before they built houses all over it ) when a Planning Application for a
major residential proposal consisted of a Site Layout Plan with the drainage outfalls marked on it, and a set of plans and elevations of the proposed
house types. That's it.
These days, the package of consultant reports and documents for a scheme of identical size will fill sevaral box files, cost a 6-figure sum in
consultant fees to prepare, and be accompanied by a huge shopping list on the Section 106 agreement that will cost the developer £millions.... all of
which has to be added to the subsequent cost to purchasers of the houses.
[Edited on 21/10/15 by Sam_68]
russbost - 22/10/15 at 07:05 AM
Sam, as ever I bow to your obviously greater knowledge, that your knowledge is greater than that of the CAA, the LAA & the entire GA community who
all believe in this complete & utter fallacy must, I guess, just prove it's all a big conspiracy theory.
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 ..................
karlak - 22/10/15 at 07:46 AM
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. The infrastructure shortfalls were completely ignored with shallow promises that they will be rectified in the future.
Doctors, Schools, roads and so on should be upgraded and in place BEFORE planning is passed. As we all know, afterwards the promises from the
developer suddenly disappear - this has already happened on our first build in the village with a promised school expansion completely forgotten. In
our recent developer case a new school is required, so the developer has allocated Land for a new lower school to be built on (not the building
itself), but the Education Authority have not funded the build as yet and there is no sign they will !
So we will have over 700 houses built and no school for the Kids to go to. Brilliant! Exactly the same goes for our already overstretched Doctor
surgery.
The whole of our meeting was a sham, it was all about not being taken to an appeal by the developer, who would win for a 4th time because our council
planners are incompetent. Meanwhile, we and other neighbours will lose value on our properties, the farmer makes a fortune, the developers walk away
with a pretty penny as well, no doubt house planners will be licking their lips and not to mention the backhanders going on.
That is the truth about planning !
russbost - 22/10/15 at 08:09 AM
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. The infrastructure shortfalls were completely ignored with shallow promises that they will be rectified in the future.
Doctors, Schools, roads and so on should be upgraded and in place BEFORE planning is passed. As we all know, afterwards the promises from the
developer suddenly disappear - this has already happened on our first build in the village with a promised school expansion completely forgotten. In
our recent developer case a new school is required, so the developer has allocated Land for a new lower school to be built on (not the building
itself), but the Education Authority have not funded the build as yet and there is no sign they will !
So we will have over 700 houses built and no school for the Kids to go to. Brilliant! Exactly the same goes for our already overstretched Doctor
surgery.
The whole of our meeting was a sham, it was all about not being taken to an appeal by the developer, who would win for a 4th time because our council
planners are incompetent. Meanwhile, we and other neighbours will lose value on our properties, the farmer makes a fortune, the developers walk away
with a pretty penny as well, no doubt house planners will be licking their lips and not to mention the backhanders going on.
That is the truth about planning !
No, No, NO!!! I'm sure you have it completely wrong! Sam knows!!
motorcycle_mayhem - 22/10/15 at 09:14 AM
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...
russbost - 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]
Sam_68 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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!
locogeoff - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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]