Showing posts with label GlavenHill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GlavenHill. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 November 2023

Update on Lanpro and Glavenhill

Lanpro’s proposal for the development of land west of North Street was circulated to local residents in early March. The document must have taken some time to prepare, perhaps a month or more, given the need to get the text approved by all the parties involved. Thus we may speculate that the landowner approached Lanpro, or was approached by them, no later than January, at which time the Bank of England base rate stood at 3.5%. Since then of course it has increased to 5.25%.

Despite optimistic noises being emitted by the UK press, there is no reason to believe that interest rates will go down in the near future. Indeed, we are as likely as not to find ourselves soon in a serious recession, if not an actual depression.

It is impossible to be sure of the size of the derivatives market, but it is far bigger now than it was just before the crash of 2008. If it implodes again – and the auguries suggest that it not only might, but eventually must – there is, this time, not enough capacity for governments to be able to bail out the culprits. There are simply too few productive taxpayers to mulct. The result will be widespread failure in the Western financial system, putting an end to speculative ventures such as building new housing estates.

Nor must we ignore geopolitical realities. The West is in long-term decline. The U.S. has not won a war since Desert Storm in 1991, and that was conducted using overwhelming firepower against a weak adversary. Its current proxy war in Ukraine, which, following decades of NATO expansion eastwards, it initiated in 2014 with the Maidan coup, is going so badly that our compliant media have all but ceased reporting it. The horrors unfolding in Gaza have caused an unprecedented unification of the Islamic world, to the extent that President Erdoğan – and Türkiye is a member of NATO – has been outspoken in his condemnation. Saudi Arabia is now accepting payment for oil in rubles: the petrodollar is on its last legs. Countries outside the West are de-dollarising. It is the USD as reserve currency that has been supporting the American empire and Western hegemony as a whole.

The sanctions against Russia have been an unmitigated disaster. The Russian economy is booming, while Europe is being so starved of cheap oil and gas that Germany is being forced to de-industrialise. Germany is, or was, the economic powerhouse of the EU. It does not take a genius to see what is going to happen to that institution now that Germany can no longer foot the bills. Despite Brexit, British and EU interests are still closely entwined, as indeed are British and American interests.

The illegal seizure of Russian sovereign and private assets by the U.S. and British governments has prompted other governments to start repatriating their own funds, since they no longer trust us. Indeed, the world, that is to say, 85% of its population, is realigning itself to the exclusion of the collective West. It is being led by the BRICS countries – particularly China and Russia, a process now being accelerated by events in the Middle East.

One could go on, for there is much more in this vein, but you can see that the future of the British economy does not look good. Then we have the almost certain probability of an incoming Labour government, which is unlikely to be sympathetic to property developers. Mr Sunak may delay the election till the autumn of next year, but as far as we are aware Glavenhill have not yet even submitted a pre-planning application. A full planning application for such a sensitive site will take many months of negotiation and to-and-fro before it can even be considered by the councillors on the NNDC Planning Committee.

As developers go, Glavenhill is a minnow. It has a total of three employees and a single director. To quote its own reporting to the government:
The company operates on a portfolio basis for land promotional activities and some of the projects complete whilst others do not. Costs incurred with the projects that do not obtain planning permission and do not complete are written off once planning has been rejected. The company’s shareholders, directors and other investors support the company until funds from successful completed transactions are repatriated to the company.
Its modus operandi, then, is to fly kites and see which of them find a favourable wind. The outlay so far has apparently been limited to the proposal document and the presentation in the Village Hall that followed it.

A 2019 pre-planning application for the same site was vehemently rejected by the NNDC, and that was for fewer dwellings than Lanpro propose. It is quite possible that this is one kite that Glavenhill will not even attempt to launch, given the economic forecast and the expense of a full planning application.

This blog was started, and the Langham Action Committee convened, in response to what looked at the time like an urgent need to counter Lanpro’s proposal. That need has become less urgent. The feature articles were introduced to keep the blog current in people’s mind, but it would seem that the time-consuming work of compiling them is no longer necessary, and from now on such posts as appear will mostly relate to planning matters.

Of course there is no guarantee that Lanpro and Glavenhill have given up, despite all indications to the contrary. If they do submit an application, we shall have only 21 days in which to respond, so if you have not already done so we urge you to subscribe by email, using the gadget in the sidebar. 

Thank you for your attention so far, and if anything transpires we will try to get the news to you as quickly as possible.

Sunday, 4 June 2023

The Parish Council questionnaire

The Parish Council has told us that it is about to distribute a questionnaire to find out what residents think about the proposal to build 35 houses on land west of North Street.

You can simply say you are for or against the proposal, or qualify your approval of it if certain conditions are met.

There are five basic reasons to be in favour of the proposal.

1. It will enrich the landowner involved, who is coincidentally the Vice Chair of the Parish Council;

2. It will enrich the developers;

3. It will provide employment for construction workers for the 18-24 months during which the site is being landscaped and the houses put up;

4. It will increase the population of the village, currently about 350, by some 50-100 souls;

5. It may provide some measure of affordable housing in Langham.

If you broadly approve of the scheme but have reservations, the questionnaire offers the following options:

1. You need reassurance about safe entry to and exit from the development;

2. You would like to see a reduction in the number of houses proposed or a guarantee that the number would not increase from 35;

3. You would like a proportion of the homes to be affordable;

4. You would like to see ‘legal protection to ensure that the homes cannot be used as second or holiday homes (if we think this could be possible)’;

5. You have other concerns.

Safe entry to and exit from the development

Access to the site must be made either from North Street or Binham Road. In either event, most of this extra traffic will use the crossroads by the church. The line of sight when emerging there from North Street is bad enough, but coming the other way, from Field Dalling Road, it is positively dangerous: so dangerous in fact that drivers must nose forward into Binham Road in order to see what’s coming.

An exit into Binham Road would also be dangerous, given the way the road curves, even if the existing and historic (it was once the village school) Parish Room were to be demolished; Lanpro have mooted providing a new village hall.

Prompted by a previous planning application for the same piece of land, the Highways Department at Norfolk County Council voiced grave concerns about the implications for road safety.

They also commented that the village is in need of more footways. Walking east from the Cockthorpe road, one can follow for a while the safe footway provided during construction of the St Mary’s estate, but at Astley Cottage this runs out and one must cross the road, again with a poor line of sight, to a narrow footway which becomes even narrower when approaching the crossroads. Having crossed over and with the church on one’s right, this narrow footway soon ends. After that, almost all the way to the Blakeney road, one must walk in the carriageway – which is often obstructed by parked vehicles.

Most of the length of North Street is served by a safe footway on its east side, but in Field Dalling Road there is no footway at all.

Fewer houses

Reduction in the number of homes below a certain point, particularly if some of them are to be designated as affordable, may make any development uneconomic. Developers fiercely resist such a reduction. However, it is possible that the figure of 35 dwellings has been put forward with the intention of appearing to compromise later by settling for fewer, a suspicion given credence by the fact that the number proposed in 2019 was only 27, four of which were to have been flats.

Affordable homes

The definition of ‘affordable’ is elastic and is discussed in this BBC article from 2016. In rough terms, an affordable home is sold at something like 80% of the market value. Developers may be required by district councils to include a number of such properties in their plans, but of course each one reduces the profitability of the development, so there is much negotiation about this before full planning consent is given.

Assuming that the new market-rate houses proposed for Langham are comparable to those on the St Mary’s estate, albeit with much smaller gardens, the affordable homes would cost something in the region of £400,000.

Using the basic mortgage calculator found here, and assuming the purchasers can supply a £50,000 deposit, and assuming the current mortgage rate of 4.5%, they will need to find £1945 a month to service a £350,000 repayment mortgage. Over the full term they will pay £583,398, which includes interest of £233,398. These are of course approximate figures. The historic bank rate since the seventeenth century has been about 5%. Given the current rate of inflation, we could soon see it go considerably higher than that.

Restrictions on occupation

In its questionnaire the Parish Council itself expresses doubt as to whether covenants restricting the occupation of these houses will be enforceable, a doubt we can only endorse. In any case, such covenants would reduce the value of the houses and make the whole scheme less financially viable.

In legal circles it is known that restrictive covenants can be and are breached all the time. If such breaches remain uncontested at law, the covenants eventually become null and void.

As to the designation of a country property as a second home, it is common practice for someone living in, say, London to designate the London house as the second home and the country property as the primary residence, neatly circumventing whatever impositions a local authority seeks to make.

Other concerns

These are many and various. The scheme if built would run a coach and horses through numerous NNDC core strategy policies, especially concerning development in the countryside and in ‘small growth villages’, of which Langham is a prime example.

If you want to look these policies up on the NNDC website, they are as follows:


In brief, this is a greenfield site lying within both the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Langham Conservation Area. Building over it will irreversibly change the character of the village and put unwonted pressure on local infrastructure, especially the road system.

For these reasons alone the proposal is highly unsuitable and, we submit, without merit.

The site
Image credit: Gaynor Pannier

Thursday, 20 April 2023

The planning process

A proposal like the one published by Lanpro can be worrying, but it is important to keep a level head. The stress is made worse by uncertainty and lack of knowledge. Stress about a housing proposal is greatly eased by an understanding of the process whereby a housing development gets the go-ahead from the authorities.

This process can be protracted, and we emphasise straight away that the Binham Road/North Street scheme is at its earliest and most tenuous stage.

The landowner and the developer

Obviously, before any sort of housing scheme can go forward, the developer either has to own the land or have a legal agreement with the present landowner. Such an agreement is likely to commit the landowner to selling to the developer if full planning permission is granted; by then the price per acre will have increased manyfold.

Someone seeking to maximise the price of his or her land might approach a property developer directly. Alternatively he or she might approach a planning consultancy. A planning consultancy, among other activities, will work on behalf of developers. The planning consultancy in our present case is Lanpro, which seems to have a close relationship with Glavenhill (or GlavenHill; both forms appear on its website), the putative developer. Quite often, especially in urban and suburban settings, it can work the other way round – a planning consultancy or developer might identify a possible site on the map and approach the landowner.

Once these relationships are in place, the next step is to produce an impression of what the development might look like. This is the stage we are at now with the proposal published by Lanpro earlier in the year. Clearly they perceive difficulty ahead, which is why they went to the trouble of mailing a glossy A3 brochure to nearby residents, lauding the purported benefits of the scheme; on 7 March they also set up an exhibition in the Village Hall. The purpose of such moves is generally to minimise the level of opposition to be encountered were a formal application to be put forward. Lanpro themselves claim, ‘We are committed to working with local people, to fully understand the opportunity at Langham and to gauge the support that is likely to be forthcoming for our emerging proposals.’

Planning permission

Legislation enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 requires any new development to be granted planning permission. As defined, ‘development’ refers to various enterprises, such as quarrying or engineering projects, change of use (e.g. from residential to commercial use), and putting up buildings.

Some forms of minor development, like maintenance of an existing building (say, renewing the windows in a house which is neither listed nor in a conservation area), are defined as ‘permitted development’ and do not need planning permission.

If planning permission is required it must be sought in the first instance from the local planning authority, which in our case is North Norfolk District Council.

It is not necessary for an applicant to own the land. The applicant will apply either for full planning permission straight away (very unlikely in such a sensitive case as this) or for outline planning permission, which if granted essentially says the local authority finds the proposal broadly acceptable.

The next step is an application for so-called ‘reserved matters’. This provides more detail than the outline planning application, and includes things like the exact size, appearance and status of the buildings, landscaping, and the provision of access roads and other public amenities. There is likely to be negotiation at this stage between the applicant and the local authority.

Once the reserved matters application has been approved, full planning permission can follow. Sometimes a ‘hybrid’ application is made, for outline planning permission for some parts of the scheme but full planning permission for the rest.

If planning permission is granted in full, that does not necessarily mean a scheme will proceed: the landowner may sell the site to another, or decide not to build for the present because of the economic climate. Planning permission is often time-limited and must be renewed. In some circumstances it can also be varied. Sooner or later, though, an approved scheme in one form or another will probably go ahead.

Opposition

If a local authority deems an application unsuitable it will be rejected. Strict policies for new housing are in place, whether drawn up by a district or county council or central government. Even if the application satisfies the requirements of these policies, it yet may be rejected for various reasons, such as concerns about road safety or the capacity of local infrastructure.

At bottom a district council is a political construct and is beholden to the electorate for its powers. Besides deciding whether an application conforms with official policies, it must take into account the views of interested parties, such as local residents.

It is the planning officers who receive planning applications. If these are minor they may be approved without being referred to the councillors on the planning committee. If, however, an application is controversial, it takes on a definite political colour and will certainly be referred to the planning committee for a decision.

Should the vote be negative, the applicant may appeal it; the government body concerned is the Planning Inspectorate. An inspector will review all the paperwork and make a site visit, after which he or she will give his or her verdict, which is binding.

What’s next?

When a planning application is made there is a statutory period of 21 days in which comments can be submitted to the local planning authority. Notices (often on bright yellow paper) may be posted at or near the site to inform interested parties of this.

It is during this crucial 21-day period that objectors must get to work. Sometimes would-be objectors are unaware of or unprepared for an application and unable to act as effectively as they would like.

That is why an action committee needs to be set up now. The steering group, its prototype, have already assembled a veritable arsenal of data and are acquiring more and more as time goes on.

This is only the first stage in what might prove a long struggle. We hope that sense will prevail and the proponents of the scheme will not take it further, but if they do we shall be ready for them.

Friday, 14 April 2023

GlavenHill and RAF Coltishall

This is another story from the Eastern Daily Press.

In 2021 a proposal was put forward on behalf of GlavenHill for building up to 325 homes on the former RAF base at Badersfield, between Buxton and Scottow.

The base is designated as a conservation area. (PDF)

A statement by the parish council said ‘the proposals are completely out of proportion with the village of Scottow and Badersfield and, if built, would undoubtedly increase the problems of non-sustainable development, where residents are reliant on cars to travel to work and school and our already congested roads worsen.’

No planning application was subsequently lodged with NNDC and the idea seems to have been shelved.

Wednesday, 12 April 2023

A neighbourhood plan for Langham?

The 2011 Localism Act introduced the idea of the Neighbourhood Plan, giving ‘communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. They are able to choose where they want new homes, shops and offices to be built, have their say on what those new buildings should look like and what infrastructure should be provided, and grant planning permission for the new buildings they want to see go ahead. Neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to plan for the types of development to meet their community’s needs and where the ambition of the neighbourhood is aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area.’

Our namesake village in Rutland has just such a plan in place, voted for by the residents. Quote:
Thirty-two percent of the Langham electorate voted in our Referendum on 2nd March [2019] where an overwhelming ninety-one percent voted ‘Yes’. A great turnout by the village and when compared with Neighbourhood Plan results in other communities.

The ‘yes’ vote ensures our Plan is a key document, used to inform planning decisions made for our village and its environment, by our Parish and County Councils, for the next nineteen years. Our community views now carry more weight.

Thanks to everyone who helped and supported the development of the Plan – a great effort, resulting in a document which will guide our Local Authorities planning for years.
Nearer to home, the neighbourhood plan adopted by the little Breckland village of Yaxham saw off a 2017 attempt by GlavenHill to build 25 unsuitable homes there. Perhaps we should be thinking about a neighbourhood plan for Langham, Norfolk. However, it is not all plain sailing, as this article makes clear.

Tuesday, 11 April 2023

What is being proposed

A proposal to build 35 houses in Langham has been made on behalf of the developers GlavenHill by Lanpro, a planning consultancy based in Norwich, on whose site a summary may be found. No details of the proposed dwellings are given. In March it was stated on that page that the developers ‘propose to make a planning application for the proposed application later this year.’

This we await with interest.

GlavenHill at Dereham

In 2018, 291 homes were approved for construction at Dereham despite ‘significant opposition’ from the community. The initial proposal was put forward on behalf of GlavenHill by Lanpro. According to the Eastern Daily Press, this decision was reached four months after another 279 homes were approved at Dereham. The plans were approved by a vote of six to four. Full story here.