Property compensation

[badger]

In the turbines thread both Rupert and Pat raised the issue of developments ruining the lives of those living near by and I think it's high time the law was changed on this. There are far too many cases of people losing privacy, view, amenity, peace and quiet, etc. etc. all in the interests of someone else making a lot of money. Not that financial compensation can ever make up for this but it might make developers of all kinds think twice before they happily ruin people's lives - because this is what it amounts to.

Why should anyone living in a house which they may have chosen as much for its location as the building itself, lose their quality of life just to line some big company's pockets or enable a selfish neighbour to create an unsuitable extension?

[changilass]

If you want the right to a view then the only way to get it is to buy all the land between yourself and the view in question.

Just as there is houses between me and what could be a lovely view, our house is also in the way of someone elses view.

You buy the property not the view, if you think anyother way then you need to look at the law of the country and think again.

[Rheghead]

In the turbines thread both Rupert and Pat raised the issue of developments ruining the lives of those living near by and I think it's high time the law was changed on this. There are far too many cases of people losing privacy, view, amenity, peace and quiet, etc. etc. all in the interests of someone else making a lot of money. Not that financial compensation can ever make up for this but it might make developers of all kinds think twice before they happily ruin people's lives - because this is what it amounts to.

Why should anyone living in a house which they may have chosen as much for its location as the building itself, lose their quality of life just to line some big company's pockets or enable a selfish neighbour to create an unsuitable extension?

I agree in so much as the Government should provide an official route to seek a discretionary compensation scheme between the developer and residents during the planning process. This should only be a one off arrangement and not inherited from occupyer to new etc.

[badger]

That's why I said should the law be changed as I know there is no right to a view but there is a right to amenity which presumably includes peace and quiet if that’s what existed when you bought your house. Obviously windfarms are on the agenda at the moment but there are other things. Pat's example of a new extension is a very familiar story where one person decides they want to build regardless of the feelings of their neighbours. Funnily enough there is a law against very tall hedges which take light from a neighbour’s garden but not, it seems, against new building. Also houses are usually the biggest investment most of us make and if your house is hugely devalued, making you unable to move if you need to (i.e. change of job) or just to get away from whatever has landed on your doorstep, why should not those who are making a lot of money from their development compensate those who are losing out? Is it fair for one person to extend their property and increase its value if the result is their neighbour loses out both financially and in quality of life?

There’s not much you can do about bad neighbours but the law could offer more protection than it does.

[badger]

I agree in so much as the Government should provide an official route to seek a discretionary compensation scheme between the developer and residents during the planning process. This should only be a one off arrangement and not inherited from occupyer to new etc.

Sounds like a sensible solution to me.

[changilass]

If the value of your property goes up due to something coming to the area are you going to pay whoever or whatever the increased value?????


I doubt it.

[badger]

I can't think of anything that would improve the value of a property to the extent that a new development can reduce it. To be told that your property is unsaleable due to a new development and uninhabitable for the same reason (admittedly the latter is unusual but it can happen), is not some compensation due from those who have destroyed your life to make profit for themselves? A few new houses where before there were none might be welcomed by some and resented by others but would not have any serious effect. However a new overcrowded estate built on too small an area close to existing houses changes an area completely. People have had their lives wrecked by new motorways, or even the threat of them - should not those people be compensated sufficiently to enable them to move?

Money can't replace a changed neighbourhood and loss of your home but it's better than nothing.

[northener]

Badger, you have my sympathies on this one.

If you were complaining about a residential development blocking your view, then I would certainly be writing 'Tough' in this post.

But seeing the size of the commercial development next to your house I'd say that in a case like that then their certainly should be grounds for some recompense.

On the down side, I could see this opening the floodgates for 'aggrieved and traumatised' claimants who can smell a payout and want to sue over their neighbours garden gnome......

Anyway, what the bloody hell are they going to build in that huge shed? Another Hindenberg? I can see it from Space.....

[Rheghead]

If the value of your property goes up due to something coming to the area are you going to pay whoever or whatever the increased value?????


I doubt it.

Something like that nearly happened to me. I put my house up for sale in 1992 which was beside a quiet run-down canal, it took 6 years to sell at £1000 less than what I paid for it. I was glad to move to my new home. Six months later, a development company announced plans to renovate the canal into a trendy area with shops eateries and what nots. The person who bought my house sold it for more than double what I sold it for very soon after. Am I aggrieved? A little if I'm honest, but I had the last laugh because 10 years later the canal is still as it was as the developments got put on the back-burner after nimbys played their part.

C'est le vie.

[badger]

Badger, you have my sympathies on this one.

If you were complaining about a residential development blocking your view, then I would certainly be writing 'Tough' in this post.

But seeing the size of the commercial development next to your house I'd say that in a case like that then their certainly should be grounds for some recompense.

On the down side, I could see this opening the floodgates for 'aggrieved and traumatised' claimants who can smell a payout and want to sue over their neighbours garden gnome......

Anyway, what the bloody hell are they going to build in that huge shed? Another Hindenberg? I can see it from Space.....

Thanks northerner, although I have to confess it's not actually next to me but I can certainly see it. So many people now have commented on the size of it and say they hadn't realised how big it would be - too late for the neighbours. The number of jobs promised has already reduced from 70 to between 40 - 60 (both figures in print).

But - it's not all about money unless your house is completely devalued. Compensation can soften the blow maybe for loss of privacy, quiet, sunlight etc. but it's like losing a leg in an accident - money might keep you alive but it won't give you back your mobility and freedom.

Wonder if anyone else watched that programme on tv last night - The Planners are Coming ? Wealthy residents in Hampstead Garden Suburb got an application for a mobile mast rejected but a little old disabled lady in the East End lost all pleasure in her garden (her only pleasure in life) when the garage next door put a hideous paint furnace the other side of her fence and was given retrospective permission. That seemed just so wrong I totally felt her pain and anger and the local councillors obviously had no appreciation of what this meant to her. The furnace could have been more sensitively sited; the garage owner could maybe have planted a tree to screen it.

We need new business with employment and more houses but so often a compromise could be reached - a better location for the business, fewer houses on unsuitable sites. I suppose it's like everything else in government - if those with the power had to experience the circumstances they impose on others, maybe they would think twice.

[david]

Something like that nearly happened to me. I put my house up for sale in 1992 which was beside a quiet run-down canal, it took 6 years to sell at £1000 less than what I paid for it. I was glad to move to my new home. Six months later, a development company announced plans to renovate the canal into a trendy area with shops eateries and what nots. The person who bought my house sold it for more than double what I sold it for very soon after. Am I aggrieved? A little if I'm honest, but I had the last laugh because 10 years later the canal is still as it was as the developments got put on the back-burner after nimbys played their part.

C'est le vie.

Given your past experience I am suprised you are so for windfarms which affect the price of property in their locality. Of course there is some compensation- In the case of Westerdale and Spittal about 5 miles away in Halkirk.

[Tilter]

I don't often go that way so haven't seen it. Is it as big as the thing at Janetstown?

[badger]

Not as tall but bigger footprint and very, very near houses.

[Tilter]

Not as tall but bigger footprint and very, very near houses.

How nice.

[Rheghead]

I was shocked as to the size of it.

[Rheghead]

Given your past experience I am suprised you are so for windfarms which affect the price of property in their locality.

How do you know I am pro-wind farm? Because of what I say here on the Org? Is that your only source of reference?

Has it ever occurred to you that I know of one or two dedicated campaigners against the windfarms who use the Org as means of spreading their arguement? I might be pro-wind just to raise the quality of arguement in a harmless environment so that when these people go to real planning meetings then they can be more prepared and equipped to meet the windfarm developer's propaganda head-on.

[david]

So are you for or against windfarms? Or do you care not because you don't live beside one? Given your past posts on windfarms, I think most folks would agree that you support them.

[mama2]

David what does it matter if he is for windmills or not????

[david]

David what does it matter if he is for windmills or not????

Historically in this forum, Rheghead has appeared to fully support windfarms, and I have strangely enough no other reference material to dispute this. I can only go on what posts he/she has made on the org. It matters nothing to me if he/she is pro or against windfarms. I do not post on here to make for a more lively debate unlike Rheghead suggests. All I am simply asking is that he/she makes it clear on their stance with regards to these developments-Simple enough question.....Surely. By your comments what does it matter if anyone is for or against windmills? You could of course apply this to any topical debate, but what then would the point of the forum. Get a life.

[Rheghead]

but what then would the point of the forum.

The point of the forum for me is to exchange views with people and learn more about a subject in question.

I do this on other forums as well, of which I am well in the anti-windfarm camp. We never know the true nature of something until we've seen both sides of it. And sometimes defending the indefensible can throw up new areas of research that wouldn't have presented itself if we hadn't. And pushing a sound agenda can gives us an insight into who we are and the frailty of overconfidence that goes with it. If there is a pro or anti windfarm stance to take then how can we affirm the power plant and condemn the smokestack, or affirm the smoke and condemn the cough?