Permit subject to a Planning Obligations

[woogas]

Short story.
Next door neighbour has long rear garden and applied to build seperate 2 bed bungalow in the rear garden.
4 neighbours and Parish council have submitted comments of objection.
I'm an immediate neighbour and wrote don't have objection to new dwelling in principle, but object to location within plot.
To date, neighbour has not come indicating his planned ideas or offerred communications.

It's going to a planning committee on 16th and received letter from planning stating that even based on comments received, the officer recommends "to Permit subject to Planning Obligations"

Can someone advise what this means.
I don't have time to take off work to attend and speak at committee

Thanks in advance

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Planning Obligations are another way of saying a Section 106 Agreement. A Section 106 is when the Local Authority expect the developer to contribute in some way to the Local Area. For a large developer it might be adding a nature reserve onto the site or building a kids playground or roads improvements or whatever. For a single dwelling it will be less so and they are always negotiable, hence provided the planners and the developer can come to a mutually agreeable agreement he will get his planning.

 

[Architexeter]

As Freddy says the Planning Obligation is normally paying money to the local authority so that the local area can have improvements to cope with increaed use/demand by an additional dwelling. It is standard on all new developments.
So it sounds like it may well get approval. If the planning officer has not taken your objection seriously it may now be worth just speaking direct with your neighbour. Just say that you are not a NIMBY and you do not object in principle just that you feel it would be better located.... and that you'd really appreciate if the plans could be amended to take this into account. You could try and speak to the planning officer too just to give further explanation to your reasons.
It may be a bit late in the day if it is about to go to committee but it sounds like you have nothing to loose and its worth a shot.

Kind regards
Thomas

 

[tony1851]

A Section 106 is.......

........extortion, pure and simple.

 

[Architexeter]

A Section 106 is.......

........extortion, pure and simple.

........another tax that disincentives landowners and developers to build, further fueling house price rises. The developer takes all the risk and the Local Authority takes all the profit. Thats deemed fair

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Hmm yes and no. For self builders etc I agree entirely but say a developer builds 1000 houses. Why should he not contribute to the local area infrastructure to support the thousands of people now using local services?

 

[tony1851]

Whatever happened to laissez-faire?

 

[Architexeter]

Hmm yes and no. For self builders etc I agree entirely but say a developer builds 1000 houses. Why should he not contribute to the local area infrastructure to support the thousands of people now using local services?

I feel there should always be a contribution with a development as many small ones have a big impact, but the mechanism of doing it needs some further thought. Perhaps a new home sales tax for the developer to the local authority, therefore proportional to the sale price of the property and payable at the time of sale with no costly legal agreement required at planning stage. Hmmm.

 

[tony1851]

Don't forget that s.106 agreements are only part of the story. There are also all the stupid, expensive conditions LPAs put on approvals, many of which are supposed to be undertaken before-hand. These vary from forming visibility splays to protecting any poor little great crested newts which might be on site.
And you have to pay to have the conditions discharged!!
I could go on but.......

 

[cjard]

Hmm yes and no. For self builders etc I agree entirely but say a developer builds 1000 houses. Why should he not contribute to the local area infrastructure to support the thousands of people now using local services?

Because those thousands houses pay thousands council tax every year. Thousands times thousands is millions and that's what pays for local services add in all the rest of the taxation these new people will be subject to and you get to realise that yeah, this is how the locality pays its way whether the house has been standing ten months or ten years.

My local council have decided that due to the economic slowdown and the fact that people still need to be able to afford a house they now require forty prevent of the houses on a site bigger than fifteen dwellings to be affordable. While I completely agree that developers should be encouraged(compelled) to build shops, pubs, schools, churches etc on large sites, to then ask them to take a punch on the nose of having to give away half of what they build starts to top things seriously toasts risk rather than reward, stymying building.

 

[cjard]

Hmm yes and no. For self builders etc I agree entirely but say a developer builds 1000 houses. Why should he not contribute to the local area infrastructure to support the thousands of people now using local services?

I feel there should always be a contribution with a development as many small ones have a big impact, but the mechanism of doing it needs some further thought. Perhaps a new home sales tax for the developer to the local authority, therefore proportional to the sale price of the property and payable at the time of sale with no costly legal agreement required at planning stage. Hmmm.

Totally agree.. I'm required to make a paymet for my self build. The new plans I have feature a smaller house but larger garage than the old plans. The previous owner said their plans would be worth270k and the council accepted. A s106 was duly made. For my plans I offered the same amount and they declined saying that as it wasa bigger floor area when adding in the size of the garage it must be worth more and hinted at a thirty percent uplift. I told them this was naive and totally unrealistic but offered them the opportunity to take the gamble on the end value and that if i sold the property within fifteen years I would make an affordable housing contribution of 2.5 percent from the sale value (a better rate than the affordable housing formula gives). They declined and we've since settled on a totally different and unrelated figure..

What really irks me with it is I couldn't afford to buy the house I'm going to build but I can afford to build it. In return for getting my house at a cost of 75 percent of the market worth, I'm taking the risk on building it and paying a massively more expensive mortgage (self build are) for the privilege. For them to then come along and say I've got to pay them to builda council house somewhere else because some feckless idiots can't afford to buy a house big enough for all the kids they keep having really tests my patience and charity. My only consolation is that hopefully said council house will be built somewhere far away rather than on my site

 

[cjard]

Whatever happened to laissez-faire?

It became laissez-welfaire


Actually if you think about it, we've just come full circle. Back when we lived in caves and hunted in tribes, the strongest in the tribe carried the weakest. Then things were more medieval, it was more every man for himself. Now statute enforces the strongest to carry the weakest. The only difference is the strongest don't know personally who the weakest are any more and do so more begrudgingly because they're thanklessly forced to do so