DamonHD Posted November 29, 2020 Author Share Posted November 29, 2020 33 minutes ago, Oz07 said: Also what makes upping the density of existing housing favourable to reducing a green belt wedge and converting a nearby field or brownfield site to housing? Surely this should be a last resort RBK is basically being forced to do everything it can on all the land it can, and that will still not be enough in terms of its housing targets. Its position isn't easy. It is, for example, attempting to build on some local semi-waste ground that happens to be full of slow worms. Don't ask me how I know... Rgds Damon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted November 29, 2020 Author Share Posted November 29, 2020 Thanks for all the comments so far: they have been very helpful and I may even be able to to get this dispatched tonight! Rgds Damon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted November 29, 2020 Author Share Posted November 29, 2020 28 minutes ago, Ferdinand said: I would go for "owner" rather than "freeholder". The latter has a slight "Freeman of the Land" feel about it, which is code for slightly nutty to many. I'd also send your Bats stuff to the Bats Conservation Trust, and ask them to weigh in. That may inluence the Council to emphasize nature and trees more. (Love the "pippip". Expecting "old fruit" to be added in a Wooster voice.) F Common pipistrelle, old fruit. But most definitely not a fruit bat! You can see the solar panels on my roof if you work up from the word "Bonner" bottom middle by 4 pairs of houses, just above the yellow trace, at the end of the S-N terrace row. Rgds Damon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav_P Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 It maybe worth taking a look at bat flight paths as well. I believe they use existing hedges and trees to navigate (probably buildings too). I think this has been a very sensitive issue in the past on large development schemes. I wonder what and where their source of food is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldkettle Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ferdinand said: No they can't just do it. There's a fairly rigorous legal process, probably in the 1947 (ish) Planning Act, plus a lot of case law since. And subject to the requirements of Judicial Review. I think eg the property acquisition budget for HS2 Phase 1 is somewhere north of 3 billion. I am not saying they take it for free. But it is not good enough to say "we want to build more houses here so here is your 10% and f. off". When we were looking we had a choice between buying a significantly larger updated house with a tiny garden and a tired relatively small bungalow on a large plot. We chose land over house and never regretted this choice thanks to the degree of privacy we've gained. I discussed our extension plans with friendly estate agents and they said there was a limit on the uplift we could achieve (well, obviously). I always maintained that I don't care whether our plans would be profitable because we want to live here for a very long time. I didn't take CPOs into account though, it has a potential to ruin any plans. A law can be unjust. Edited November 29, 2020 by oldkettle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted November 29, 2020 Author Share Posted November 29, 2020 Thank you all: I've submitted a PDF to the planning dept by email. Now I just need to make sure that it is accepted else I shall have to drag my sorry frame through the covid plague fields on foot to drop it through the physical letterbox (though most of the building is shut, AFAIK). Rgds Damon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 I presume, useless as they are, you have contacted your MP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 (edited) Regarding the valuation. Surveys say (and my own experience) is that buyers don't value PV even at the original 44p rate. However there are companies that will buy your FIT. They won't if they know about the impending compulsory purchase but they might make an offer you can use to argue the value should be higher. Edited November 30, 2020 by Temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 On 28/11/2020 at 18:27, DamonHD said: Cambridge Road Estate, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT1. I'm not happy about it. Unfortunately Google says they consulted residents earlier in the year and they voted for the regeneration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 10 hours ago, Oz07 said: I presume, useless as they are, you have contacted your MP My MP knows all about it, and his wife (a) is one of my ward councillors (b) has the property portfolio (c) was fighting my corner up until the point she was elected and took on the property portfolio... Rgds Damon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 7 hours ago, Temp said: Unfortunately Google says they consulted residents earlier in the year and they voted for the regeneration. Getting some people to vote for confiscating the assets of a minority doesn't make it batter for the minority... Rgds Damon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 7 hours ago, Temp said: Regarding the valuation. Surveys say (and my own experience) is that buyers don't value PV even at the original 44p rate. However there are companies that will buy your FIT. They won't if they know about the impending compulsory purchase but they might make an offer you can use to argue the value should be higher. I can simply get an assement of the present value of the remaining cash flows, plus savings from self-consumption for the remainer of the expected life of the panels etc. Rgds Damon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 8 hours ago, DamonHD said: Getting some people to vote for confiscating the assets of a minority doesn't make it batter for the minority... Rgds Damon Just for info this is what I was referring to. https://www.kingston.gov.uk/news/article/1033/cambridge_road_estate_residents_back_neighbourhood_regeneration_plans "On a turnout of 86%, 73% of eligible residents have backed plans to regenerate the estate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamonHD Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 And I suspect (though don't know) that almost all the freeholders and leaseholders, who lose out badly, were in the "no" camp like us. Majorities can be tyrannies too. But we are where we are. If it's going to happen I'd like the outcome to as good as possible for everyone. I received confirmation that my comment has been received and will be applied appropriately. Thanks again all! Damon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daiking Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 OMG, Lib Dems, property portfolio, social housing lawyer ? I wish you well Damon, good luck as this stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now