Government caves in on planning reform.

[tony1851]

So it's back to square one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22221670

The gist is that the householder has to notify the LPA before building a large extension (more form-filling and delay).
The neighbour then has a certain time to object (what if the neighbour is away? What if it's a landlord? More form-filling and red-tape by the council issuing notices).
And of course most people don't like any development next to their own house - so there will be a rash of complaints
Then, on what criteria do the LPA decide whether or not an application is necessary. They will decide on the basis that they would like a nice fee for dealing with a new application.

One could not dream up a worse compromise than this. It's half-baked and the Government's supposed intention of encouraging building will be completely thwarted.

I give up.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I am sure there will be a clear and concise set of criteria by which each application is to be considered by the Local Authority.

 

[tony1851]

I am sure there will be a clear and concise set of criteria by which each application is to be considered by the Local Authority.

The published critria will be something like;

"is the proposed extension detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining properties"

No LPA will say "no", because they will want an application fee.

Another issue is: in the absence of any drawings, how will an LPA judge? Will it have a pitched roof or flat roof? Will any windows overlook? etc. In the absence of drawings, I don't see how they can judge the impact.
And giving them drawings defeats the object of saving the householder time and money.

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the 6/8m proposal, this legislation could be a dead letter in terms of achieving what the Government originally wanted.

 

[rjm2k]

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the 6/8m proposal, this legislation could be a dead letter in terms of achieving what the Government originally wanted.

It could be even worse than that, there were 2 aims, stimulate the building industry and cut red tape. If they change all PD so that you have to ask the council who ask the neighbours then in effect they have done away with PD altogether haven't they?! If any neighbour objects to something which they previously had no right to object to under PD, no council will allow the development.

 

[geraldthehamster]

So it's back to square one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22221670

The gist is that the householder has to notify the LPA before building a large extension (more form-filling and delay).
The neighbour then has a certain time to object (what if the neighbour is away? What if it's a landlord? More form-filling and red-tape by the council issuing notices).
And of course most people don't like any development next to their own house - so there will be a rash of complaints
Then, on what criteria do the LPA decide whether or not an application is necessary. They will decide on the basis that they would like a nice fee for dealing with a new application.

One could not dream up a worse compromise than this. It's half-baked and the Government's supposed intention of encouraging building will be completely thwarted.

I give up.

I agree, it's utterly incompetent. The whole point of PD is that it's permitted, with no need to involve the local council or spend money on a planning application. This new proposal creates a new procedure that councils will have to administer, alongside the regular planning application process.

They could simply have listened to the consultation and scaled back the proposed increase to PD limits. Even a one metre increase would make a project more attractive, without causing so many issues. Then there's the wraparound extension issue.

Cheers
Richard

 

[luisdesign]

What a complete waste of time...

So they are saying that, in order to see if your proposal needs an application, you need to make an application to the council first? and then another application if it does require one? How is this better than now?

Absolutely ridiculous.

What they should be doing is simply amending the GDPO guidelines to allow for larger extensions but force everyone to make the application to the council.

This would have the desired effect of allowing greater extensions, boosting the building trade (and design ) but with minimal increase in red tape - on account of the fact that its often advisable to make the CoLD application anyway. Plus this would of course mean that authority planning departments would be able ot more effectivley monitor development in their borough, notify and ensure projects are built under building controls and pull in the much needed fees.

bah... but their answer of cutting red tape is to provide more red tape.

I can't believe these people...

morons.

 

[piggylet]

Does anybody know roughly when we are to be blessed with more red tape .I wonder if the nimby neighbours I have will be consulted over a 6ft by 4ft shed I am saving up for. If so I may as well forget it cos they complain about anything they can now. The last complaint was the "stains" caused on a window when the wind blew bubbles over the fence when kids were playing in the garden. So in other words the developments will be permitted BY NEIGHBOURS. Middle England wins again...."we don't like change"

 

[tony1851]

[quote="piggylet";p="2748762"I wonder if the nimby neighbours I have will be consulted over a 6ft by 4ft shed I am saving up for. [/quote]

Fret not; you should still be able to build your shed, as long as it is not in your front garden or on your roof.

The rules on permitted development as amended in October 2008 (which includes sheds) should still apply. It is the issue of the larger rear extensions which the Government is making a complete hash of.

 

[piggylet]

NO I could not build anything in my front garden anyway as that is where the locals have built their tribute to the wicker man. It does look lovely in the evenings when they all gather with their fire torches and begin chanting my name.But I suppose it is only right to give more power to this sort of person. And as for the decision making process of the local planning committee.....well that's based on how close is the next election and how many votes will my decision (on planning policy only) get me....don't you just lurve democracy. So I want a large extension how much do you think I should pay the neighbours to not complain....In my case I would never have enough lol

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Fret not; you should still be able to build your shed, as long as it is not in your front garden or on your roof.

What!!! Its a God-damn Commy state we live in I tell thee! Bring on the revolution!

 

[tony1851]

NO I could not build anything in my front garden anyway as that is where the locals have built their tribute to the wicker man. It does look lovely in the evenings when they all gather with their fire torches and begin chanting my name.

 

[piggylet]

At present we have "no fit state" and the only reason why is because the shooting of politicians and other annoying people is against the law. Don't vote for them it just encourages them lol... I really want to sell up sod off and live in a house made from storage containers in a woods far far away or a cloud big sigh... dream on

 

[geraldthehamster]

Maybe the populace could take industrial action in the form of a mass build-in. Everyone starts building extensions and the councils wouldn't have the resources to do anything about it.

I wonder where Planning stands in the list of priorities for councils who are being compelled to close local services because of government cuts?

Cheers
Richard

 

[tony1851]

I wonder where Planning stands in the list of priorities for councils who are being compelled to close local services because of government cuts?

Cheers
Richard

I would suspect it's quite high because it is a cash-generating service. What income do they get from libraries except a few overdue book fines?!

 

[geraldthehamster]

I would suspect it's quite high because it is a cash-generating service. What income do they get from libraries except a few overdue book fines?!

Unfortunately true.

And another thing - I thought the point of planning permission was that nothing would be approved that would be detrimental to the amenity of *any* potential neighbour, not just the current neighbour. This seems not to have been understood by Eric Pickles (no surprise there).

For example, a planning condition might require opaque glass for an overlooking window, not because a current neighbour objects, but because of the effect on anyone who might live in the adjacent property. Just because a current neighbour does not object to a 26 foot extension shouldn't necessarily be sufficient for it to be permitted.

Cheers
Richard