Planning Rules to Be Relaxed

[french frank]

http://politicsontoast.com/2011/09/1...e-countryside/

I note the comment from the writer: "Both this Government and the last are completely fixated with delivering ‘affordable’ homes. These are, in my mind, nothing more than an eyesore for anyone who lives in the country." Hmmm....

The whole thing is a bit like jobs: you can create 100,000 new jobs in Caithness and Sutherland (lots of building land there too) but that's no good if people don't want to work there.

There is a problem, and it isn't one the Green Party can wave a magic wand over: problem solved.

The idea behind the changes is to provide construction jobs, because that's an industry vital to the economy. Not surprisingly, people always respond: we want jobs, we want growth, we want prosperity - but not that way.

[Lateralthinking1]

I note the comment from the writer: "Both this Government and the last are completely fixated with delivering ‘affordable’ homes. These are, in my mind, nothing more than an eyesore for anyone who lives in the country." Hmmm....

The whole thing is a bit like jobs: you can create 100,000 new jobs in Caithness and Sutherland (lots of building land there too) but that's no good if people don't want to work there.

There is a problem, and it isn't one the Green Party can wave a magic wand over: problem solved.

The idea behind the changes is to provide construction jobs, because that's an industry vital to the economy. Not surprisingly, people always respond: we want jobs, we want growth, we want prosperity - but not that way.

With respect, that is a highly selective quote. There are people who oppose nuclear power not just because they happen to live in a county that has a nuclear power station. And the writer's comment is not a Nimby one. It looks at the countryside as a whole.

People with economic interests - not you - twist the presentation of the countryside so that it becomes viewed as a millionaires' paradise. I tend to think of the mass trespass on Kinder Scout, then the millions of ordinary workers in rural places I have visited, and after that the fact that people who want breathing spaces in the cites and the suburbs are from all class backgrounds.

The facts speak for themselves. The problem is affordability. It isn't planning restriction. The Government is becoming a wild contortionist. It is getting close to the stage where it would bomb the country into oblivion if it was finding managing the finances too difficult. Is it too much to ask that strings are attached to Quantitive Easing etc? Then we would get affordable homes!

[martin_opera]

As a qualified town planner for the past 13 years working in various county, city and local authorities and now running my own consultancy business the endless tinkering with the planning system is a convenient scapegoat to ignore the key questions that the Government does not want to answer:

- how do we ensure that housing is affordable to all (in parts of Yorkshire you need to earn over £50k to afford the lowest quartile house price). The local dentist in a large Yorkshire Dales town closed (not because of lack of patients) because they couldn't find anyone who could afford to live in the town or was prepared to travel that far to be a receptionist and hygienist. At the moment planners rely on three main methods a) planning gain from market housing which is always contentious and slows down the process, b) exceptions sites i.e. building homes where you wouldn't otherwise build them so as to take advantage of lower land prices (stymied by landowners who hold on to land in the hope its value will rise) or c) through public finance and work of the Homes and Communities agency who have had their budget slashed. Unsurprisingly planners do try and secure as much as possible from option a).

- how do we better distribute our growing population across this extensive Country without a national spatial plan that has a vision for different parts?

- how do we align housebuilding, job growth, transport infrastructure and services between local authority boundaries without strong strategic plans in place at sub-regional and regional levels - like the rest of Europe

- how do we encourage local people to accept development in their areas - as far as I can see Localism isn't helping much.

It's been a frustrating few days to see the lies spun about planning and planners. I would seriously prefer the Government to have the courage to abolish the whole system if it believes that ideologically it is so damaging. We'd then see what grass roots supporters think of the changes to their places!

[french frank]

I would seriously prefer the Government to have the courage to abolish the whole system if it believes that ideologically it is so damaging.

Seriously?

[martin_opera]

Seriously?

Sure Frank - let capitalism rip for a while and let's see what we get. It's the only way they'll learn.

[Serial_Apologist]

Interesting to get the view of an erstwhile local authority planner, now running his own consultancy business. I wonder how typical his are.

[Lateralthinking1]

As a qualified town planner for the past 13 years working in various county, city and local authorities and now running my own consultancy business the endless tinkering with the planning system is a convenient scapegoat to ignore the key questions that the Government does not want to answer:

- how do we ensure that housing is affordable to all (in parts of Yorkshire you need to earn over £50k to afford the lowest quartile house price). The local dentist in a large Yorkshire Dales town closed (not because of lack of patients) because they couldn't find anyone who could afford to live in the town or was prepared to travel that far to be a receptionist and hygienist. At the moment planners rely on three main methods a) planning gain from market housing which is always contentious and slows down the process, b) exceptions sites i.e. building homes where you wouldn't otherwise build them so as to take advantage of lower land prices (stymied by landowners who hold on to land in the hope its value will rise) or c) through public finance and work of the Homes and Communities agency who have had their budget slashed. Unsurprisingly planners do try and secure as much as possible from option a).

- how do we better distribute our growing population across this extensive Country without a national spatial plan that has a vision for different parts?

- how do we align housebuilding, job growth, transport infrastructure and services between local authority boundaries without strong strategic plans in place at sub-regional and regional levels - like the rest of Europe

- how do we encourage local people to accept development in their areas - as far as I can see Localism isn't helping much.

It's been a frustrating few days to see the lies spun about planning and planners. I would seriously prefer the Government to have the courage to abolish the whole system if it believes that ideologically it is so damaging. We'd then see what grass roots supporters think of the changes to their places!

There is a huge amount to your contribution. I can't do it justice. One question is about confidence in the planning system. It isn't ridiculous to suggest that the public will always be deeply sceptical about development. That if development of any kind is thought likely to encroach on green spaces or home turf, the instinct of many will be to say "no". That no sensitive development will ever be sensitive enough. So how logical is it that a Government should say "we will ignore sensitivities to an unprecedented extent"? How exactly is that going to improve the confidence of a highly sensitive public? I should say that it won't do. Rather, while there may have been as much chopping and changing with planning as there has been in, god forbid, education, there is another truth.

It is that the planning regulations and guidance have been the subject of thought and expertise since at least 1945. One could hardly say that the policy hasn't evolved with careful management and sharp attention to detail. It still isn't right. It might have even gone backwards. Almost certainly, it will always need subtle reform to take account of life changes. But why on earth chuck all of that learning over a cliff? As all confidence goes, planning will become just like the markets. It isn't even as if this hasn't been a trend. You will be aware of the shenanigans in the North, as well as the West, over out-of-town shopping centres. The kinds in which officially there should only be B and Q and the like. No smaller units. Bit by bit, the developers test the system. A planning application for a small change in this building here; another there; and by the nineteenth the planning authority has inadvertently given consent to a high street style retail development. In the process, it has overridden its own conditions about the places being only suitable for warehouse style outlets. Stores move in, the high street is finished, and there's a loss of belief all round.

Then regional policy, based on national spatial plans and so on. One of the most extraordinary aspects of the Blair/Brown experiment was the absence of any significant interest in regional development. Geoffrey Howe might have told Margaret Thatcher to write off Merseyside. With Labour, one does expect a little more. We are being told by this Government that the private sector should in time create new jobs. Many will naturally arise in the green economy, or so it used to be said. It wasn't very plausible and the phrase isn't used much at all now. But let's be charitable. There should still be a fair number of jobs in that sector. There might even be jobs in other sectors. So where is the message that there will be incentives for businesses to create those jobs in the North? I haven't heard any Government Minister speak about such things in the last two years. And why is there talk of reducing regional pay in what remains of the public sector? In whose interest is it to cram everything into the already crowded South East?

It isn't that people don't want to work elsewhere. Many would run to other parts of Britain for the right job. And that isn't even needed. There is more than enough demand already there. Much less than a decade ago, one could easily say that the best lifestyles were had by those who had decent jobs outside the South East. If that isn't necessarily true now, it could be again. Quite clearly, there are distinct differences between Stockton and Skipton. Arguably, employment opportunities will always be fewer and far between in places that are more remote. But having lived in York and being pretty familiar with North Yorkshire as a whole, there are probably few centres that you can't get to in 90 minutes. That used to be the duration of my journey from here to London and it is fairly typical. So if you can get the jobs into Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Hull, York, Leeds, Ilkley, Harrogate, Richmond, Ripon and Bradford, surely some of the difficulties would be alleviated. And house prices are still far cheaper there.

[scottycelt]

C'mon Vince, time to kick arse!

Please, amsey, this is a superior internet forum of some distinction so please remember where you are ...

As for the latest government 'plans' to boost growth, these seem positively desperate to me. Just when the government is regulating the financial sector it now seems hell-bent on de-regulating everything else. It is pure anarchic laissez-faire capitalist theory ... let's have a free-for-all with no rules and everything will work out just fine in the end.

If there is not enough spending money in the economy any relaxation of sensible and established rules won't make a blind bit of difference to growth. Instead it is simply likely to cause chaos and increased disputes.

The only thing that will work is when the world economy turns the corner and that could take years. This thing is entirely outwith the control of any national government ... even the once-mighty and self-contained USA is now heavily dependent on external factors.

I suppose politicians just like to be seen to be doing "something" ... and, to be fair, are often expected to do "something", however useless.

[Resurrection Man]

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.

......:

Why? Same old hobby horse.

I benefit if I want to extend my house. I can now make it bigger than previously. So can my neighbour. On either side. Or down the rest of the street. None of us are 'wealthy' in the context you are implying.


General point of information. Many posts here are confusing Planning Permission with Building Control. Two separate departments. Satisfactory excavations and whether or not they will impact on neighbouring properties comes under Building Control and which is not affected by the planning relaxation.

I do agree with the general tenor of the thread, namely that this relaxation is wrong and it isn't going to do that much. It's jobbing builders and trades who do this type of work. Not the likes of Barratts.

Listening to the R4 Today programme they had a representative from, IIRC, The National Housing Federation who when asked about the changes replied that they hadn't seen the full document. This strikes me as just plain daft and is typical of Governments left and right. They will pay money to consultants but won't necessarily ask those who have a valid point to make. One can argue certainly that these organisations will have their own agendas but it doesn't take much of an analytical brain to factor that in.

[eighthobstruction]

There you are he himself thinks it's tosh....[sic]

http://www.analyticstraining.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cameron.png

[Lateralthinking1]

Why? Same old hobby horse.

I benefit if I want to extend my house. I can now make it bigger than previously. So can my neighbour. On either side. Or down the rest of the street. None of us are 'wealthy' in the context you are implying.


General point of information. Many posts here are confusing Planning Permission with Building Control. Two separate departments. Satisfactory excavations and whether or not they will impact on neighbouring properties comes under Building Control and which is not affected by the planning relaxation.

I do agree with the general tenor of the thread, namely that this relaxation is wrong and it isn't going to do that much. It's jobbing builders and trades who do this type of work. Not the likes of Barratts.

Listening to the R4 Today programme they had a representative from, IIRC, The National Housing Federation who when asked about the changes replied that they hadn't seen the full document. This strikes me as just plain daft and is typical of Governments left and right. They will pay money to consultants but won't necessarily ask those who have a valid point to make. One can argue certainly that these organisations will have their own agendas but it doesn't take much of an analytical brain to factor that in.

I am sorry but your third paragraph is not correct. I can provide confirmation in writing from a Head of Planning at a Local Authority as evidence of the following -

First, Planning Permission given to the building of a garage extension also applies to any excavations needed to be able to build it. The same is true of a house extension. Planning Permission is not given just to the final arrangement but to the means of making that possible. In law, excavations are a part of the approved "development". The garage or house building extension will additionally need to comply with the Building Regulations. I accept that it might well be that the excavations for those buildings may also need to comply with the Building Regulations but that would be in addition to the Planning Permission.

Next, excavations for driveways into new garage extensions are covered by the Planning Permission for the garage building. The reason is simple. If the garage cannot be used as a garage without excavations - eg the door could not be opened without the removal of earth in front of it - then it doesn't meet the definition of a garage. Hence the Planning Permission for the garage building also applies to external arrangements that make the garage a garage, ie the excavations to the front of it. I could write additionally here about assigned parking places but won't do so.

The scenarios outlined, not uncommon, may indeed be affected by the Government's proposed changes in many instances. Currently there is a 3 metre limit under Permitted Development Rights, ie the length at which there is a right not to seek Planning Permission for an extension. This is to be extended to 6 metres. Hence excavations to create an extension of a length greater than 3 metres that would have required Planning Permission if the Planning Regulations were not to be waived will not now need Planning Permission unless the extension is longer than 6 metres.

Frequently in practice this will mean that the proposed new building is extended further towards a neighbouring property than would have been the case otherwise. And any necessary excavations will not merely be closer to neighbours but not be controlled by the Local Planning Authority if the length of the extension is less than 6 metres.

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=965