Planning Rules to Be Relaxed

**amateur51** · 06-09-12, 08:34

I thought roughly the same when I heard this news this morning, Lats.

A chap from the Housebuilders' Federation pointed out that there was no way this was going to work unless the banks start lending again.

**MrGongGong** · 06-09-12, 08:36

Originally posted by amateur51 View Post

the banks start lending again.

Didn't "we" give them some money to do this ?

**amateur51** · 06-09-12, 08:43

Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post

Didn't "we" give them some money to do this ?

"We" most certainly did, MrGG and I think it's about time Vince went 'nuclear' about their failure to use these funds in the manner that was originally intended. The banks appear to be using them to shore up their capital assets, as required

C'mon Vince, time to kick arse!

**Lateralthinking1** · 06-09-12, 08:45

Originally posted by amateur51 View Post

I thought roughly the same when I heard this news this morning, Lats.

A chap from the Housebuilders' Federation pointed out that there was no way this was going to work unless the banks start lending again.

Yes, I guess that is true.

Under the existing system, we did not oppose a neighbouring extension. However when the earthworks were undertaken in a cavalier fashion, it took me some 18 months to get a statement from the local authority agreeing that the excavations as well as the buildings were covered by the planning permission.

I am still with the Ombudsman on the matter of the boundary wall. The local authority is of the view that it has no duty to require a retaining wall to prevent the potential for landslip on and from our property as a consequence of the excavations that were permitted under the planning approval it issued. I disagree.

In many ways, I am pleased that the extension has been completed before this change. But I am completely against the new "policy". Complex situations already arise and more will do so. Many people will be frightened by the consequences of neighbour's actions and some will lose considerable amounts of money through no fault of their own.

And of course it is just one element of the destruction of the countryside that is being authorised.

**Serial_Apologist** · 06-09-12, 11:46

Pardon me for being thick, but there's no way that I can see that UK.com can sell its way out of recession/depression by permitting people to extend their houses more than currently permitted. Even if one feels sorry for neighbours likely to be overshadowed and thereby have the value of their propoerty downgraded in consequence, it is, again, nothing to do with "we're all in this together", but those wealthy enough to own or live in property with sufficient space below/above/or surrounding, who will benefit from this.

As regards developers/builders having more incentive to build if less restricted by %s of affordable housing required, is less affordable new build in central London going to bring in low-paid staff needed right on-hand for social services? I heard Clegg on R4 "explaining" this morning at six-to-the-dozen and couldn't follow his "logic".

Oh yes, I'd forgotten of course, they're cutting back on social services, aren't they, so they won't need so many of 'em.

Same old same old...

**Lateralthinking1** · 06-09-12, 11:59

Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post

Pardon me for being thick, but there's no way that I can see that UK.com can sell its way out of recession/depression by permitting people to extend their houses more than currently permitted. Even if one feels sorry for neighbours likely to be overshadowed and thereby have the value of their propoerty downgraded in consequence, it is, again, nothing to do with "we're all in this together", but those wealthy enough to own or live in property with sufficient space below/above/or surrounding, who will benefit from this.

As regards developers/builders having more incentive to build if less restricted by %s of affordable housing required, is less affordable new build in central London going to bring in low-paid staff needed right on-hand for social services? I heard Clegg on R4 "explaining" this morning at six-to-the-dozen and couldn't follow his "logic".

Oh yes, I'd forgotten of course, they're cutting back on social services, aren't they, so they won't need so many of 'em.

Same old same old...

I think the logic might be that if you build thousands of five bedroom houses in woodland, that will send the price of five bedroom houses plummeting as there will be more five bedroom houses than anyone can afford. Consequently it is hoped that the four, three, two and one bedroom property prices will also fall dramatically on the grounds that everything flows down from the top. And, so the idea goes, first time buyers can then buy a studio flat for sixpence.

The difficulty arises if the values don't all flow downwards. That is very likely. First, the real top end of the market in London is the multi-milion pound property bought by those from the Middle East and that won't change. Secondly, there is the potential for huge expectant demand at the lowest end in the light of bigger house values dropping. That demand at the lower end will combine with a lack of supply of affordable houses and will keep first timers' prices high.

So this appears to be a recipe for creating a loss of wealth all the way down the economic scale to where it matters and then to have no change at that latter point. I think they are inadvertently engineering a Spain like housing crisis. The lower middle incomes will be hit very hard while people still won't be able to buy homes for the first time. In parallel, we will lose essential greenery, there will be more pressure on services and more people will need benefits although they won't be made available.

The only possible things that could prevent such a situation occurring are (a) Am's point about the lack of money to build, or the unwillingness of developers to spend money, even with the new relaxations and/or (b) an opening up of the 700,000 plus empty homes to first time buyers. The first is very probable although there is more money to be had in building estates without the affordable housing requirement. The latter looks very unlikely seeing that they could be doing that anyway.

As for extensions, I'd like to simplify my earlier point. All parts of the buildings are covered by Building Regulations but the excavations never have been. They have only been covered by planning permission. In some cases, there are already permitted development rights which mean that excavations aren't covered by anything. But now those are to be extended by length so uncontrolled cowboy excavations will be undertaken closer to far more people's homes.

On your point about space, the property that caused us heartache is on a corner. Being on a road of superior character, there was space to its rear on which to build. That is to the side of my parents home. In this road, the gardens are tiny and they slope upwards. In theory, my neighbour could always have taken out half the hill in his garden next to mine by bulldozer. I could have done nothing about it. Now he can take out all of it, fill it with buildings and with no planning permission. The situation is typical.

**Simon** · 06-09-12, 12:00

I think this may miss the main problem. Is it really about the odd single extension, or is this a useful red herring? After all, building regs still should keep them sensibly safe.

Could it, rather, be about vested interests making sure they can build where they want to in order to make more money? If so, one wonders how much may have been paid out in brown paper bags in order to set this particular policy hare running...

**MrGongGong** · 06-09-12, 12:08

I think its probably so that we get more of this

**Lateralthinking1** · 06-09-12, 12:37

Originally posted by Simon View Post

I think this may miss the main problem. Is it really about the odd single extension, or is this a useful red herring? After all, building regs still should keep them sensibly safe.

Could it, rather, be about vested interests making sure they can build where they want to in order to make more money? If so, one wonders how much may have been paid out in brown paper bags in order to set this particular policy hare running...

I am not in any way an economist and I'd be more than happy if someone said that my assessment in post 7 was incorrect. I do have some knowledge of planning. How I know almost every inch of those fields around Heathrow - but that's another matter!

Anyway, you might well be right. There are very many thousands of planning applications that already have planning approval. Building is not taking place in such cases for a variety of reasons including that a percentage of the houses needs to be affordable. Those are not the most profitable obviously. Now it seems that requirement is being waived. One might then expect more of those approved applications to go ahead with executive houses. That is 100% executive houses in those new roads.

Then there's the simplification of planning control which will be far more flexible. It has been brought down from hundreds of pages to about fifty. That's to be finalised and it will encourage more applications to go forward to local authorities including on the green belt. We look out on woodland across the valley but probably not for long. We'd have to wait until it was built, then move.

Additionally, they are going to help 35,000 first timers but that sounds like a drop in the ocean.

The extensions will matter in terms of removing safety protections for neighbours under the law, not needing to maintain their light, being able to overlook them, not needing to be visually compatible, not having to retain good community relations and not needing to worry about potentially lowering their property values. Think Benidorm. There will though be a one month consultation.

This policy marks a change from "I probably will never vote LD again" to "not a chance in hell for the remainder of my lifetime". Not bad going for a party that in one guise or another I supported exclusively for 25 years and sporadically for at least another 8.

**amateur51** · 06-09-12, 12:50

Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post

I think its probably so that we get more of this

Ah another carbuncle on the backside of a person of quality

**french frank** · 06-09-12, 13:09

I've just been looking at a new edition of Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful. I just can't believe this, but he says - or said in 1973 - that the US was one of the major sparsely populated areas and that if the population of the entire globe was placed in the US, the population density would be the same as that of the UK.

Can this possibly be true? If so, it does give an idea of the planning pressures on local authorities - and any government.

**Lateralthinking1** · 06-09-12, 13:43

Originally posted by french frank View Post

I've just been looking at a new edition of Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful. I just can't believe this, but he says - or said in 1973 - that the US was one of the major sparsely populated areas and that if the population of the entire globe was placed in the US, the population density would be the same as that of the UK.

Can this possibly be true? If so, it does give an idea of the planning pressures on local authorities - and any government.

I don't know whether it is true but these facts are true:

- 200,000 planning applications have been approved but no one is building on those sites (Source - LGA)

- 740,000 homes are sitting empty - 25% are in London (Source - CLG)

- 3 million homes could be built on brownfield land -160,000 acres - without any changes to the rules (Source - HCA)

- There are vast amounts of empty land in areas of the North and Midlands that are crying out for regeneration

The Government claims that it took account of the huge opposition to its planning reforms. 1300 pages of draft guidance to local authorities have still been reduced by Grant Shapps to just 50 odd in the draft document. He has been promoted.

Caroline Spelman has lost her post because of the about-turn on forestry when it was Cameron who was in favour of selling it off.

And now today's wilful abandonment of many of the controls that do remain with Clegg of all people at the helm. I am so pleased I voted Green last time around and am absolutely disgusted at what is being proposed.