Post by michaelc on Nov 15, 2016 22:01:03 GMT
I started looking at this loan and if I'm not mistaken (?) the security and thus valuation is based on planning permission being granted.
As someone who spent a year obtaining full planning permission for three houses including getting all the surveys done and doing the plans without an architect or planning professional I feel I do know a little about the process. Obviously I'm not a planning professional but I can say I now know rather a lot more about pippistrelles and root protection areas than I ever thought I wanted to !
I was a bit shocked that this is being sold as if the council are "bound" to approve. Reading the letter from the planning department that is published, it is obvious that isn't the case. It _may_ be likely but it definitely isn't in the bag and there is a lot of undue optimism in that letter.
In order to gain planning permission you have to satisfy every single relevant consultee who the council will consult with. The biodiversity officer (bats, newts etc) and tree officer are just two. If every box is nicely ticked and the council agree except for one officer, planning will be refused.
Without having the time just now to read the current and previous planning applications, it looks already like the site has a site tree preservation order on it. That is quite a big deal - it means all trees including saplings usually above a given size are protected. The tree officer can overturn that or modify it as part of the application, but there is very likely a reason that a site TPO is currently in force. Look at the site plans and tree survey. Where are the trees? You will very likely not be able to cut any of them down (even the cat Cs.....)
As for satisfying the biodiversity officer for (in this case) bats, making glib statements about this "I can confirm there is no evidence of bat activity and this is purely needed as they are a protected species" is absolute rubbish. If it was known there couldn't be bats there, there would be no need for a summer emergence survey. It is very unlikely a lay person would be aware of their existence. But the main point here is, God help any developer if there are bats present! It would add a lot of time and a lot of cost to the development.
So despite lots of really high quality investments from FS, I shan't be piling in to this one. It might turn out to be good, but it was just the "don't worry planning is in the bag" (when it clearly isn't) letter that got me annoyed and made me write this.
As someone who spent a year obtaining full planning permission for three houses including getting all the surveys done and doing the plans without an architect or planning professional I feel I do know a little about the process. Obviously I'm not a planning professional but I can say I now know rather a lot more about pippistrelles and root protection areas than I ever thought I wanted to !
I was a bit shocked that this is being sold as if the council are "bound" to approve. Reading the letter from the planning department that is published, it is obvious that isn't the case. It _may_ be likely but it definitely isn't in the bag and there is a lot of undue optimism in that letter.
In order to gain planning permission you have to satisfy every single relevant consultee who the council will consult with. The biodiversity officer (bats, newts etc) and tree officer are just two. If every box is nicely ticked and the council agree except for one officer, planning will be refused.
Without having the time just now to read the current and previous planning applications, it looks already like the site has a site tree preservation order on it. That is quite a big deal - it means all trees including saplings usually above a given size are protected. The tree officer can overturn that or modify it as part of the application, but there is very likely a reason that a site TPO is currently in force. Look at the site plans and tree survey. Where are the trees? You will very likely not be able to cut any of them down (even the cat Cs.....)
As for satisfying the biodiversity officer for (in this case) bats, making glib statements about this "I can confirm there is no evidence of bat activity and this is purely needed as they are a protected species" is absolute rubbish. If it was known there couldn't be bats there, there would be no need for a summer emergence survey. It is very unlikely a lay person would be aware of their existence. But the main point here is, God help any developer if there are bats present! It would add a lot of time and a lot of cost to the development.
So despite lots of really high quality investments from FS, I shan't be piling in to this one. It might turn out to be good, but it was just the "don't worry planning is in the bag" (when it clearly isn't) letter that got me annoyed and made me write this.
