Housing Development is going to destroy all our dreams

[SimonH2]

The value of a property can only be impacted by nearby development if people are considering things which do not belong to the property (such as a view, or an open field to the rear) to form part of that value.

When you buy a house you are buying the house, the land it sits on, and any access rights included in the deeds. End of story.

No-one can - or should - expect to be compensated for lawful development on land they have no rights over.

Would you still say that if you lived in a quiet area, and they proposed to build ... say some form of entertainment venue (= lots of cars coming and going at unsocial hours), or a pub, nightclub (noisy p***ed revellers in the early hours) ? Like it or not, but the commercial value of a property does depend on it's location and locality. The development may be completely lawful and within planning permissions - but it may well have a direct negative effect on the value of your home.

Thus there is a completely logical argument that if you have a home that could today be sold for (say) £200k, but with the development could only be sold for (say) £175k, then in effect that development has cost you £25. So tell me again why someone should be able to do something for their profit, but not have any liability for losses that causes you ?

 

[hotrod]

Thus there is a completely logical argument that if you have a home that could today be sold for (say) £200k, but with the development could only be sold for (say) £175k, then in effect that development has cost you £25.

That's hypothetical though. The 'value' of a property is what 'one' person (or organisation) is willing to pay for it at one point in time. It always makes me laugh when people say "my house is worth £xk". Houses aren't commodities like oil or gold that can be easily traded on the markets and owners often get emotive about them - which can lead to them over valuing them.

 

[SimonH2]

The 'value' of a property is what 'one' person (or organisation) is willing to pay for it at one point in time. It always makes me laugh when people say "my house is worth £xk". Houses aren't commodities like oil or gold that can be easily traded on the markets and owners often get emotive about them - which can lead to them over valuing them.

That is true but does not invalidate the argument - you could say the same about cars, but I doubt you'd accept someone driving into you and refusing to give you a penny in compensation because it's value is only hypothetical. There is no difference really - houses are traded just like other commodities, the only difference is that they are less portable and generally higher in value.

While it is true that the value is only what someone is prepared to give you, it is a fairly well established norm for them to be given values by people who's job is to know what such a hypothetical buyer is likely to consider a reasonable price.

 

[big-all]

its not rocket science i am afraid you need to do your homework and find out what the the land can be used for then enjoy or not buy in the first place

 

[noseall]

The 'value' of a property is what 'one' person (or organisation) is willing to pay for it at one point in time. It always makes me laugh when people say "my house is worth £xk". Houses aren't commodities like oil or gold that can be easily traded on the markets and owners often get emotive about them - which can lead to them over valuing them.

That is true but does not invalidate the argument - you could say the same about cars, but I doubt you'd accept someone driving into you and refusing to give you a penny in compensation because it's value is only hypothetical. There is no difference really - houses are traded just like other commodities, the only difference is that they are less portable and generally higher in value.

While it is true that the value is only what someone is prepared to give you, it is a fairly well established norm for them to be given values by people who's job is to know what such a hypothetical buyer is likely to consider a reasonable price.

....and the other side of the coin could be that a potential buyer may not give a hoot about the neighbouring development and pay you top dollar because he likes the location.

Cuts both ways Simon so compo' will be argued out of court.

 

[Inky Pete]

So by the same argument, should homeowners be compelled to pay additional sums if things change in their area which cause their property "values" to increase?

If the local school gets a good Ofsted, should an extra property tax be levied?

If the police clear out a drug den,or if a problem family gets evicted, should the immediate neighbours be sent a bill?

If a noisy pub stops serving kids, playing loud music and goes up market, should they receive money from their neighbours?

Should a housing developer who builds sympathetically on an abandoned brown field site get paid by the neighbours for the improvement of their locality?

Of course not!

 

[big-all]

So by the same argument, should homeowners be compelled to pay additional sums if things change in their area which cause their property "values" to increase?

If the local school gets a good Ofsted, should an extra property tax be levied?

If the police clear out a drug den,or if a problem family gets evicted, should the immediate neighbours be sent a bill?

If a noisy pub stops serving kids, playing loud music and goes up market, should they receive money from their neighbours?

Should a housing developer who builds sympathetically on an abandoned brown field site get paid by the neighbours for the improvement of their locality?

Of course not!

in theory you do pay more if you "facilities "in your house and surrounding area have improved by you council tax band being adjusted
and likewise if your house falls into disrepair and your amenities worsen
but doubt having new neibours will count

 

[Inky Pete]

Council tax bands are determined by the property value back in 1991, and are fixed.

A homeowner can ask to have their banding reviewed (but again, it's based on what the house was - or would have been - worth in 1991) with view to the band dropping, but the council can't revalue off their own bat with a view to pushing houses up the bands.

 

[big-all]

Council tax bands are determined by the property value back in 1991, and are fixed.

A homeowner can ask to have their banding reviewed (but again, it's based on what the house was - or would have been - worth in 1991) with view to the band dropping, but the council can't revalue off their own bat with a view to pushing houses up the bands.

i am sure they can if you have substancially improved extended

 

[Inky Pete]

Definitely not in response to improvements in the surrounding area. And it's only ever really done for an individual property in the case of a complete demolition and replacement.

The last government did propose an across the board revaluation - which would have resulted in relatively higher bills for anyone whose house value had risen more than the average for the area. But that never got off the ground before they got voted out.