Planning application

M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Withnail said:
But doesn't the council essentially have to 'show willing' in making land available to 'meet' this housing requirement?

The sites are allocated, what more can they do?

What possible 'ability' do they have to 'require' it to then 'come forward'? Are they, if fed up of waiting, about to build them themselves?

I think what @Pooryorick alludes to is that Stafford already has sufficient planned required housing, does it not? The fact that they are yet to be actually built is hardly their fault.
Click to expand...

Im not sure i understand your point. The local authority need to identify (allocate) enough land to meet their housing requirement. Before allocating these sites the council should be reassured that they are developable and likely to come forward in the plan period.

Land at castlefields has been delayed for a number reasons.

If the allocated sites dont come forward the council will not be able to meet their housing requirement or have a 5 year housing land supply, which opens the floodgates for speculative applications to come forward which the council will find it difficult to refuse.

Some authorities, like birmingham city council are now building homes themselves.
 
Last edited:
Tilly

Tilly

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
Im not sure i understand your point. The local authority need to identify (allocate) enough land to meet their housing requirement. Before allocating these sites the council should be reassured that they are developable and likely to come forward in the plan period.

Land at castlefields has been delayed for a number reasons.

If the allocated sites dont come forward the council will not be able to meet their housing requirement or have a 5 year housing land supply, which opens the floodgates for speculative applications to come forward which the council will find it difficult to refuse.

Some authorities, like birmingham city council are now building homes themselves.
Click to expand...


Ideas Plans Schemes Requirements whatever you prefer to call them . They are already obsolete - just like councils will be in two years

Exit EU workers - less homes needed

Piss poor wages - far cheaper homes needed

Return of the Prefab
 
B

bunique

Well-Known Forumite
Tilly said:
Ideas Plans Schemes Requirements whatever you prefer to call them . They are already obsolete - just like councils will be in two years

Exit EU workers - less homes needed

Piss poor wages - far cheaper homes needed

Return of the Prefab
Click to expand...
Exit EU workers should mean a rise in wages in the short term until the govt establishes arrangements with outside-EU countries on work visas etc. Rise in wages = rise in costs of everything. Yay, Brexit!
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
Im not sure i understand your point. The local authority need to identify (allocate) enough land to meet their housing requirement. Before allocating these sites the council should be reassured that they are developable and likely to come forward in the plan period.
Click to expand...
My point was that the LA (SBC in this instance) has 'identified' (ie allocated) enough land to meet their housing requirement, and demonstrated that that land is developable.

Land at castlefields has been delayed for a number reasons.
Click to expand...
How many of those reasons can be directly attributed to inaction or otherwise of the LA? If the ability of development to 'come forward' cannot be influenced by the LA, why should the LA be punished for not bringing it so?

If the allocated sites dont come forward the council will not be able to meet their housing requirement or have a 5 year housing land supply, which opens the floodgates for speculative applications to come forward which the council will find it difficult to refuse.
Click to expand...
So does that not mean that, if the allocated sites don't 'come forward', the LA will not be seen to be able to meet their housing requirement? If their 5 year housing land supply is not therefore actually 'brought' forward, might it not therefore "open... the floodgates for speculative applications to come forward"? Might that not be an outcome desirable to those that failed to 'bring forward' the initial offering?
Some authorities, like birmingham city council are now building homes themselves.
Click to expand...
And this is something that you think SBC is likely to do anytime soon?
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
The council has identified enough land that's why they've been able to reject a number of schemes such as Ash flats. In order for the council to be able to continue to demonstrate a 5 yr housing land supply and defend speculative applications they nèed their allocated sites, like castlefields to come forward.

The developers behind the castlefields scheme want their site to be developed. They don't want another house builder coming forward. A site, like castlefields, will have been the subject of a local plan promotion which is a costly and time consuming project, therefore, they don't want to lose it.
 
Wormella

Wormella

Well-Known Forumite
https://www.expressandstar.com/news...lodges-appeal-to-build-200-homes-in-stafford/

Developer Gladman Land had applied to put up 155 houses and up to 55 care apartments on countryside next to the A34 Cannock Road, near the Wildwood estate and Acton Hill Road, in Stafford.

The plans, which received 178 objections, were refused by South Staffordshire Council last year after a coach load of residents attended a planning committee meeting.

Now the developer has applied to the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State to overturn the decision.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Wormella said:
https://www.expressandstar.com/news...lodges-appeal-to-build-200-homes-in-stafford/

Developer Gladman Land had applied to put up 155 houses and up to 55 care apartments on countryside next to the A34 Cannock Road, near the Wildwood estate and Acton Hill Road, in Stafford.

The plans, which received 178 objections, were refused by South Staffordshire Council last year after a coach load of residents attended a planning committee meeting.

Now the developer has applied to the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State to overturn the decision.
Click to expand...

I suspect gladmans have a contractor with the landowner which requires them to use all reasonable endeavours to secure planning consent. I don't give them much hope at appeal, however that's subject to sbc delivering enough homes.
 
Thehooperman

Thehooperman

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
I suspect gladmans have a contractor with the landowner which requires them to use all reasonable endeavours to secure planning consent. I don't give them much hope at appeal, however that's subject to sbc delivering enough homes.
Click to expand...

I saw a programme about Gladmans recently and they look for local authorities that don't have a proper housing development plan and then purchase any land that looks like it can be successfully developed on.

They rely upon getting appeals put through in the absence of said plan and then sell on to a developer at a hugh profit for very little work.
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
markpa12003 said:
I suspect gladmans have a contractor with the landowner which requires them to use all reasonable endeavours to secure planning consent. I don't give them much hope at appeal, however that's subject to sbc delivering enough homes.
Click to expand...
South Staffs actually.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
proactive said:
South Staffs actually.
Click to expand...

Woops. Yes that's correct.

Sstaffs are doing well in bringing forward housing sites, as demonstrated in Penkridge and Codsall. However, their current housing target is very low. In the next plan review it will be significantly increased.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Thehooperman said:
I saw a programme about Gladmans recently and they look for local authorities that don't have a proper housing development plan and then purchase any land that looks like it can be successfully developed on.

They rely upon getting appeals put through in the absence of said plan and then sell on to a developer at a hugh profit for very little work.
Click to expand...

Land promoters, like Gladmans look for local authorities that don't have a 5 yr housing land supply or up-to-date local plan.

The Cheshire West and Cheshire East have taken a hammering from land promoters. I read a statistic recently that in a 2 yr period Cheshire East lost 19 out of 20 appeals.
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
markpa12003 said:
Woops. Yes that's correct.

Sstaffs are doing well in bringing forward housing sites, as demonstrated in Penkridge and Codsall. However, their current housing target is very low. In the next plan review it will be significantly increased.
Click to expand...
I suppose the question is then, is their housing target currently low enough to allow this build through on appeal?
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
proactive said:
I suppose the question is then, is their housing target currently low enough to allow this build through on appeal?
Click to expand...
I haven't reviewed the council's latest 5 yr hls or annual monitoring report, however I think Sstaffs will be able to demonstrate that they are delivering enough houses and, therefore, there is no need to release this site for development.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
Pooryorick said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...arons-inside-murky-underbelly-land-promotion/
Click to expand...

A very misguided article containing very little fact.

The article fails to acknowledge that in areas across the UK there is a housing shortfall and land promoters & developers are helping to bring forward sites for development. We may not always want development where they are being promoted, however the article should acknowledge the fact that if wasn't for land promoters and house builders very few houses would get built.

The reason why there has been a significant increase in land promoters in the last 5 - 10 years is because they offer landowners better terms than house builders and seek to obtain the highest land value for the site. They also take all the risk out of the planning system in return for a small percentage of the final sale value. It is not uncommon for landowners to be land rich but money poor. Also, in most cases, landowners haven't got the time or expertise to promote a site through the planning system either as a short term site (planning application) or as a strategic site which is promoted through the local plan system which takes years and very deep pockets with no guarantee of success.
 
Last edited:
P

Pooryorick

Well-Known Forumite
You'd better contact the Torygraph and put them right.
My heart bleeds for penniless, benevolent developers, particularly those in the Times Rich List who cab barely scrape together ten million quid and give the impression they're Robin Hood working with charities..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top