Cuddle? or throttle?

Adam Tinworth suggests you cuddle a property developer today.

I was reading through some of my occasional blog reads today, when I came across this post (excerpt below - DS) on Technovia, the weblog of former MacUser editor Ian Betteridge. He tells the tale of a developer in Brighton which has violated its planning permission and is suffering as a result. From this he draws the rather mysterious conclusion that all property developers are scum.

Now, maybe it's because I've just spent a day in a conference centre full of property developers, and maybe it's because they form a large part of the readership of EG, and thus help keep me employed, but I really don't think property developers are scum. Commercial property development is a risky game. You put all the money up front, often buying sites without the planning permission you need. You then have to run the gauntlet of the council's planning process, which can vary wildly from county to county. You have to agree a Section 106 agreement which, in essence, means you agree to give up some of your profit to improve the locality in a way the council directs, before you see a single penny of that profit. Then, once your building is done, you have to rely on the vagaries of the property letting market. Property development takes years. Misjudge your start point - or have it pushed back too far by the planning process - and suddenly you can find yourself with a multi-million pound investment with no return, as many developers in the City of London are finding right now. (Too many buildings, not enough occupiers in the market.) And you have to put up with the opinion of every member of the public and local newspaper hack who decides that just because something is big and obvious, they understand the issues involved.

Technovia might suggest a more forceful sort of contact:

Up until a couple of months ago, Brighton had a rambling set of 200 year old Georgian buildings next to its clock tower. These buildings were a bit ramshackle, contained nice little shops - and thus, at least in the local council's eyes, were ripe for redevelopment.

Thus the old nice buildings and little shops got bulldozed. Only one problem: planning permission had been given on the basis that the shop facades were preserved, but instead, the developer chose to flatten them and apply for permission for a completely different development instead.

The result, of course, is deadlock: planning permission has been refused, quite rightly, leaving a big hole slap bang in the middle of Brighton.

What amazes me is that the council were stupid enough to believe the developer in the first place. The developer clearly believes that, sooner of later, it will get its way - and in many cases like this, that's exactly what happens. Of course, what should happen iis that the law should be changed so that councils are given a right to purchase any land where the developer has deliberately violated planning permission at the same price the developer paid for it. That would stop this kind of thing from ever happening again - but it would also mean offending big business, which under a "New" Labour administration will never happen.

And here is the image which set off Technovia:

I don't know; one could easily describe it as a piece of conceptual art.

Comments

[JRoth]

This case exemplifies what frustrates me about regulation - its toothlessness. As far as I'm concerned, the developers in question (leaving aside the question of generalization) belong in prison - simple as that. But no regulatory system in the free world has penalties commensurate with the kind of illegal, irreparable harm that property owners can do.

How many stories have you heard of developers/contractors demolishing without a permit, or demolishing before "office hours" in order to simply ignore the clear will of the public? It's commonplace! The best case seems to be this sort of standoff, which costs the developer money and serves as a warning to others, but is still a huge loss for the public realm, one that will not be made good.

This is why I have no patience for those who complain about regulatory restrictions on their property rights. Governments can't pull this kind of BS - if regulation limits your use of a property, you know it in advance, and it's caveat emptor. But when the private developer does it, it's tough luck, Charlie, and a big middle finger to the public.