Few like it when a new house goes up next door. It may result in loss of amenity (light, noise, street parking competition). The value of your property may go down. The existing Planning Laws do not allow for direct financial compensation to neighbours. Very many objections to planning applications can be sourced to a (perceived) financial loss if the structure next door goes up.
In a manner entirely typical for the socialism which permeates so many post-war laws, the only form of compensation offered by our Planning Laws is to the collective. With Section 106 Agreements certain obligations are imposed upon a developer, and in return he will obtain planning consent. Section 106 Agreements typically provide recreation facilities, health, education and social housing.
Elderly Mrs. Smith who will lose part of her view over an arcadian field may not be moved by the offer of a new school in compensation, and will continue to object to the proposal at all costs. Even if Mrs. Smith is so public spirited to be happy to lose money in return for a benefit to the public at large, her view of what constitutes a public benefit may be at odds with what the planning officers and councillors on the planning committee have in mind.
Direct financial compensation to those who have the most to lose, as proposed by Dr. Mark Pennington in Liberating the Land (an IEA publication), would transform many nimbies into happy neighbours. More houses would be built and prices would go down.
This does not solve the problem of the neighbour who would not be moved by money, and who will oppose any development at all costs. This is unavoidable. But direct compensation would dramatically reduce their numbers.
