New suburbia is an environmental cul-de-sac
Another short break from the Property Development Project to comment on an article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph last week by Jim White headed ‘New suburbia is an environmental cul-de-sac’.
The gist of the article was about the redevelopment of a large area of wasteland near where Jim lives into a development of 2,500 houses. Jim has no complaints about the use of the land for housing, it is just that the development is providing no facilities for its residents and certainly no benefit to the wider community other than providing much needed housing.
So no new schools, shops, doctors surgery, park, leisure centre or public transport connections.
Apparently the Local Authority has a policy that it will obtain planning gain (i.e. contributions to onsite and offsite facilities) on developments of 200 houses or above. Although to you and me 2,500 is measurably over 200 the Local Authority allowed the developers to escape this by accepting phased applications for 199 houses.
He also complains that the developers were not forced into using the latest technology for recycling of water and the provision of renewable energy technology.
I find it incredible these days that there is a Local Authority so supine (to use Jim’s description) that it fails to collect contributions from all housing sites never mind sites of 200 or more. Where I live you can escape if the development is only for a single plot but otherwise no contribution – no planning permission. Many authorities even charge single plots and have set scales depending on the size of the units being provided.
It is also incredible that phased applications can be used to escape contributions; for decades most authorities have been onto this trick and require an initial comprehensive planning application for the whole area when they will fix the level of contributions before allowing detailed applications for the various phases.
Jim should complain to his local Councillors and get them to alter the Local Development Framework for the area to require development-planning gain on all sites. Since this will take some years to come into force he could point out to the Councillors that by adopting Supplementary Planning Guidance for the region they could get decent levels of contributions in place a lot quicker.
On the other point – requirements for the actual construction of the houses are set out in the Building Regulations and although these get tougher every year (adding costs all the time) there is no obligation on developers to exceed the current regulations.
However it is a common occurrence for developers to be coerced into providing more energy and water efficiency in their units if they are convinced this will give their application an easier ride through the planning system. It is up to the planners to use their negotiating skills to achieve these concessions.
One argument that can be used to achieve the environmentally friendly development that Jim wants is to point out to the developer that not only will he get planning permission quicker it will also give him another marketing ploy to use when selling the resulting houses for the maximum price.
Stay tuned to Property Development Fortunes...
The gist of the article was about the redevelopment of a large area of wasteland near where Jim lives into a development of 2,500 houses. Jim has no complaints about the use of the land for housing, it is just that the development is providing no facilities for its residents and certainly no benefit to the wider community other than providing much needed housing.
So no new schools, shops, doctors surgery, park, leisure centre or public transport connections.
Apparently the Local Authority has a policy that it will obtain planning gain (i.e. contributions to onsite and offsite facilities) on developments of 200 houses or above. Although to you and me 2,500 is measurably over 200 the Local Authority allowed the developers to escape this by accepting phased applications for 199 houses.
He also complains that the developers were not forced into using the latest technology for recycling of water and the provision of renewable energy technology.
I find it incredible these days that there is a Local Authority so supine (to use Jim’s description) that it fails to collect contributions from all housing sites never mind sites of 200 or more. Where I live you can escape if the development is only for a single plot but otherwise no contribution – no planning permission. Many authorities even charge single plots and have set scales depending on the size of the units being provided.
It is also incredible that phased applications can be used to escape contributions; for decades most authorities have been onto this trick and require an initial comprehensive planning application for the whole area when they will fix the level of contributions before allowing detailed applications for the various phases.
Jim should complain to his local Councillors and get them to alter the Local Development Framework for the area to require development-planning gain on all sites. Since this will take some years to come into force he could point out to the Councillors that by adopting Supplementary Planning Guidance for the region they could get decent levels of contributions in place a lot quicker.
On the other point – requirements for the actual construction of the houses are set out in the Building Regulations and although these get tougher every year (adding costs all the time) there is no obligation on developers to exceed the current regulations.
However it is a common occurrence for developers to be coerced into providing more energy and water efficiency in their units if they are convinced this will give their application an easier ride through the planning system. It is up to the planners to use their negotiating skills to achieve these concessions.
One argument that can be used to achieve the environmentally friendly development that Jim wants is to point out to the developer that not only will he get planning permission quicker it will also give him another marketing ploy to use when selling the resulting houses for the maximum price.
Stay tuned to Property Development Fortunes...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home