up the A271
to install more pooh pipes, to take the shit from the creek
Row and pump it via Victoria
Road to the Southern
Water treatment plant.
has built no genuinely affordable housing.
generally enforce against the real thing.
has not earmarked any land for affordable development. Let alone a
rolling stock, 5 and 10 years supply of land.
more expensive housing on land that could be used for sustainable units,
affordable housing is likely to be as self builds, or by self build
builds could be flat-packs assembled on site in a matter of weeks.
means that a local agricultural worker could afford a mortgage to
purchase a property on his or her wages. The rule of thumb that no more
that 30% of income should be allocated for housing.
packs are around the twenty-five £25,000 thousand pounds mark. Land
that is earmarked for self-builds could be around £10,000 (ten thousand
pounds) for a plot. All in all, a decent home could be up and running
for about £40,000 - 50,000 (forty to fifty thousand pounds).
units are the benchmark that destroys developer arguments against
will do all they can to prevent such development, to protect the
investment of over priced units that their wealthy landlord chums are
Conservatives will do all they can to prevent such development to help
out their wealthy party supporters, many of which are wealthy landlords
and/or councillors with property interests.
lack credibility and fumble the ball when in power after the
Conservatives really mess up.
Liberal Democrats are gently sheep like where action is required but
lack strong leadership.
Green party will never get voted in, because their policies tell it
political party has the guts to give councils a good legal kicking for
their failures, because it's all just politics.
need to be put in a legal strait jacket, ordering low cost house
building with extremely harsh penalties for defaulting, including
routine staff reviews and sackings for non-compliance. Especially at
executive, legal and planning levels.
need routine auditing for declarations of interests and code of conduct
us stop pussy-footing around, and call a crook a crook.
4, 6, 8 DEFECATE - ....
BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON
In Parkhurst Road Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor  EWHC 991 (Admin) Holgate J said having examined land and sales values in the area:
“it is clear that the appeal proposal would not provide the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing in accordance with
He went on: “It is also important to ensure that new development is sustainable, delivering the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing in all cases so as to meet the needs of all.
“I note the appellant's position that no affordable housing will come forward if the development is refused planning permission but this argument could be applied to any residential case and is not justification for allowing development that does not properly meet policy requirements and
The Inspector also commented that he had had regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain development and the need for flexibility when applying planning policy, but that this should not be at the expense of delivering affordable housing. He concluded that "an inflated land value should not be subsidised by a reduction in affordable housing".
The appellant argued that the MV approach should therefore be preferred. The appellant further argued that the affordable housing provision was irrelevant to determining land value.
The Inspector did not agree. In particular, he highlighted the difficulties of using comparable evidence as to market value where there is a lack of evidence available of similar transactions with comparable attributes, for example EUV, AUV or abnormal costs, as was the case in this instance. Comparing bids for different sites without knowing the assumptions of the landowner or developer also makes it impossible to know whether the circumstances are in fact comparable.
The Inspector was similarly unwilling to accept the appellant’s submission that the affordable housing provision was not relevant to determining the land value. He commented that any notional willing landowner would be required to consider planning policy and obligations in their expectation of land value. Furthermore, the purchase price is the developer's risk. The developer must account for planning policy and guidance when considering the amount that it is willing to pay for a site.
The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 173) makes the viability of a development an important consideration, and acknowledges the need for competitive returns and the need to ensure that the viability of a development is not put at risk by imposing overwhelming burdens. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises flexibility in applying policy requirements, and sets out that, when determining site value for the BLV, land or site value should:
- reflect policy requirements and planning obligations and, where applicable, any Community Infrastructure Levy charge
provide a competitive return to willing developers and landowners (including equity resulting from those wanting to build their own homes)
be informed by comparable, market-based evidence wherever possible. Where transacted bids are significantly above the market norm, they should not be used as part of this exercise.
McCARTHY & STONE Vs BARNETT COUNCIL
A landmark high court ruling has made it much tougher for developers to avoid a planning duty to provide a quota of affordable housing on new developments.
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton backed Barnet council's rejection of a developer's scheme because it did not include any affordable homes.
Under planning rules developers are required to provide an element of affordable housing on all housing programmes of more than 15 homes in London, and 25 homes outside London.
But many can escape that duty by claiming that providing affordable homes would make the whole scheme financially unviable.
Barnet council had rejected a scheme by developers McCarthy and Stone to provide a 43-home, private sheltered housing development on the grounds that it did not include any affordable housing.
The local planning inspector backed an appeal against that decision after accepting that the developers claimed the cost involved meant it was "not appropriate, reasonable or practicable" to provide affordable homes.
Last week the judge quashed that decision and ruled that planning inspectors must carefully examine the financial excuses used by developers to resist providing affordable homes.
Mr Justice Burnton said: "An inspector should not too readily accept assertion unaccompanied by financial data as a basis for a planning decision."
The judge also said the inspector failed to take into account the developer's ability to access grants.
Please use our
A-Z INDEX to
navigate this site