|
|
Post by savingstream on Dec 9, 2014 15:43:18 GMT
Dear Investor, PBL004 has reached the end of it's 6 month loan term. Below is a planning application update for this loan. This loan is secured against a block of land in Exeter which has been submitted to planning for up to 63 houses. It is in effect the ransom strip for a much larger scheme of over 300 units. The planning has been deferred until the 5th of January to give time to the two owners to decide on the best access route into “our” block through “their” block and for the planning committee to conduct a site visit on the 16th of December. There are also local political arguments taking place over the access route, so it must be deferred in acquiescence to these local concerns. However, the good news is that the site is part of a larger “local plan” so planning will not be declined, as long as the access can be satisfactorily agreed; this is very close to fruition. The worst case scenario is another deferment in January, which means our borrower must appeal. This could take another 6 weeks; but the local planning committee must give permission within that time frame. More good news, the site at this stage of planning has been valued verbally at £2m and £3m on the grant of Outline. We are waiting for confirmation of this and will submit it to the platform in due course. As such we are going to extend this loan for a period of 3 months until the end of Febraury 2015. If any investors wish to exit the loan at this point, we are happy to buy any investor out with company funds and offer this availability back on the Saving Stream platform. Thank you for investing in Saving Stream. Kind regards, The Saving Stream Team www.savingstream.co.uk |
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 9, 2014 18:49:26 GMT
This could take another 6 weeks; but the local planning committee must give permission within that time frame. : Thank you for providing the update on the planning position for PBL004. I am, however, slightly confused by the statement quoted above. Do you really mean "must give permission"? I'm not completely familiar with planning rules, but I would have thought that while the committee must make a decision within the specified time frame, I'm surprised that the decision must be to grant permission over any and all objections. If that's really the case, then it would appear that there's no incentive at all for an applicant to adjust their plans in any way and the planning authority has no control whatsoever over what development is to be permitted and what is not. If that's the situation, then the planning permission system is an even bigger farce than I previously thought it to be!
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188 
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Dec 9, 2014 19:00:45 GMT
units of this loan available on SM
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Dec 9, 2014 19:02:58 GMT
This could take another 6 weeks; but the local planning committee must give permission within that time frame. : Thank you for providing the update on the planning position for PBL004. I am, however, slightly confused by the statement quoted above. Do you really mean "must give permission"? I'm not completely familiar with planning rules, but I would have thought that while the committee must make a decision within the specified time frame, I'm surprised that the decision must be to grant permission over any and all objections. If that's really the case, then it would appear that there's no incentive at all for an applicant to adjust their plans in any way and the planning authority has no control whatsoever over what development is to be permitted and what is not. If that's the situation, then the planning permission system is an even bigger farce than I previously thought it to be! My understanding of the statement is that planning permission will & must be granted & that only the access issue needs a resolution amiable to all parties concerned. So, the project will go forward in the end regardless. Is that interpretation correct savingstream?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 9, 2014 20:06:55 GMT
My understanding of the statement is that planning permission will & must be granted & that only the access issue needs a resolution amiable to all parties concerned. So, the project will go forward in the end regardless. Is that interpretation correct savingstream? : Thanks for your input. What would happen if "a resolution amiable to all parties concerned" cannot be achieved? I would have thought that if there was an easy solution it would have been agreed by now.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 9, 2014 20:21:38 GMT
As I said in my previous comments elsewhere on this loan, obtaining permissions is only a matter of time as the development lies within an area designated for housing within the Local Plan. The fact that we're dealing with a request for permission to build houses in an area designated for housing may mean the planning authority can't refuse permission because the intended use is for housing, but the usual point of contention in a situation like this is that the developer wants to cram in more houses than the planners/neighbours/infrastructure can support in an effort to improve the economics of the development, so I would have thought that the planners still could refuse permission because the proposed development is too dense. And the developer could take the position that they can't proceed on that basis because the project economics won't support the lower density requested. I'll admit I haven't read all the available correspondence, so perhaps that aspect of the development already has been agreed and thus no longer is an issue.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Dec 9, 2014 21:05:49 GMT
My understanding of the statement is that planning permission will & must be granted & that only the access issue needs a resolution amiable to all parties concerned. So, the project will go forward in the end regardless. Is that interpretation correct savingstream? : Thanks for your input. What would happen if "a resolution amiable to all parties concerned" cannot be achieved? I would have thought that if there was an easy solution it would have been agreed by now. Indeed I'm in agreement with you mikes1531, hence my request for SS to clarify as their comment indicates one outcome but, is that the only intended outcome? Is it just the small matter of time to dot the Is & cross the Ts that is needed. It just seems to good to be true
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Jan 14, 2015 10:10:31 GMT
We are pleased to confirm that the developer has been granted planning permission for this development. This should have increased the value of the site to circa.£3m. We have instructed a new valuation which we hope to have in the next couple of weeks.
|
|
