Government caves in on planning reform.

[tony1851]

Update; the latest proposals from uncle Eric are as follows -

1. Anyone wishing to build a large extension will have to notify the LPA giving details and 'plans' (whatever that means?) and, presumably, filling-in a form;

2. The LPA will notify adjoining owners of the proposal, and if no objection is received within a certain time (21 days?) the work can go ahead;

3. If a neighbour objects, the LPA have to look at the scheme and will ask for a formal planning application if they believe it will be detrimental to the neighbour's amenity.

Problems;

1. If we have to submit 'plans' first, it adds extra delay and cost to the client and defeats the object of the Building Notice poceedure;

2. It brings an extra layer of complexity and also a personal element, whereby it is only permitted development if the neighbour permits it. Contrary to the minister's expectations, this could cause trouble between neighbours. At least with the present system, everyone knows where they stand.

3. Most neighbours will object because no-one likes change.

4. Does anyone think that a LPA will turn down the chance of a planning application (and of course, F££) for anything over 3m/4m?

This ham-fisted proposal will cause trouble between neighbours, result in more (not less) red-tape, and may well cause fewer (rather than more) extensions to be built.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

This is all a charade, you're rubbing your hands together with glee you greedy monkey!

 

[tony1851]

This is all a charade, you're rubbing your hands together with glee you greedy monkey!

No, I'm not, actually - I don't see it bringing anymore work in anyway.

What annoys me is that DCLoG spent a lot of time in the Autumn preparing the consultation document, and respondents spent time responding. Now, after the defeat in Parliament, the minister makes up policy on the hoof and within a few days this new idea is dreamed up. This proposal is not an adjustment to the original idea, it is a whole new concept and should have been properly thought through.

On any reckoning, this idea is a complete and unadulterated dogs-dinner of a mess with no advantage to anyone.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

No I disagree tony, some dogs are fine diners you can’t condemn them all.

Untitled

• freddiemercurystwin
• 26 Apr 2013
• 1

 

[tony1851]

Everybody:

We have a very serious planning- reform issue on our hands, and all some people can do is post a picture of some dressed-up b***h at the dinner table. (and what's the dog doing there?).

 

[barney17]

Hi does anyone have any idea when this will happen please? My friend who works in the council sent me an email that they all had to notify them it was going to happen but still not saying when. Do you think it will just come in one day without notice?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Pretty much.

 

[tony1851]

Update;

The Growth and Infrastructure Act is now law and the Government's revision to the pd rules are included.

It appears that existing pd rights are unaffected, BUT;

Anyone wishing to build anything larger will have to go through the prior notice proceedure. For example; if you wish to build a 3.5m extension to a semi, you now have to submit a written description AND A PLAN of the proposal (there goes the Building Notice system).

The council will write to adjoining neighbours and if no objection is received within 21 days, the development can go ahead. If the neighbour objects, the LPA has to decide if the extension would result in a loss of amenity (which of course they will, to get their fee).

It is more than likely that LPAs will consider that anything over 3m projection will cause loss of amenity. Add to this the fact that most people don't like building going on next door, and the net result will be that hardly any more domestic extensions will be built than at present.

Result; more red tape and no additional building. Thanks Mr Pickles.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Update;

The Growth and Infrastructure Act is now law and the Government's revision to the pd rules are included.

It appears that existing pd rights are unaffected, BUT;

Anyone wishing to build anything larger will have to go through the prior notice proceedure. For example; if you wish to build a 3.5m extension to a semi, you now have to submit a written description AND A PLAN of the proposal (there goes the Building Notice system).

The council will write to adjoining neighbours and if no objection is received within 21 days, the development can go ahead. If the neighbour objects, the LPA has to decide if the extension would result in a loss of amenity (which of course they will, to get their fee).

It is more than likely that LPAs will consider that anything over 3m projection will cause loss of amenity. Add to this the fact that most people don't like building going on next door, and the net result will be that hardly any more domestic extensions will be built than at present.

Result; more red tape and no additional building. Thanks Mr Pickles.

I agree with your assessment. It also bears no relation to anything that was put out for consultation last year.

It does illustrate the importance of striving to get on really, really, well with your neighbours

Cheers
Richard

 

[tony1851]

It also bears no relation to anything that was put out for consultation last year.

That's right. It means that the effort that DCLoG put into drafting the proposals for consultation, and all the effort that everybody put in to respond, has all been wasted.
Such a drastic change as this should have been given careful consideration but it has been done on the hoof. The Government has effectively washed it's hands of the matter, and instead of setting firm lines for neighbours, has said - in effect - 'you sort it out between yourselves'

 

[AronSearle]

As long is there is are things like "a right to light", you are not going to cut red tape, the whole planning process is an edifice designed to stop such extensions when possible.

 

[geraldthehamster]

As long is there is are things like "a right to light", you are not going to cut red tape, the whole planning process is an edifice designed to stop such extensions when possible.

PD already exists - it would have been easy to listen to the consultation and reduce the increase, perhaps to an extra metre. There's a big difference in viability between a 3m room and a 4m room on a semi, and between a 4m room and a 5m room on a detached house. Might have encouraged a few people to build. Although the reason people aren't building is the lack of money, I'd have thought.

Cheers
Richard

 

[AronSearle]

[quoteAlthough the reason people aren't building is the lack of money, I'd have thought. [/quote]

Ages ago my dad wanted to turn the garage into a room.

Council said no, you have to have two parking spaces, (we didn't want to gravel over the front garden).

We didn't have a car, 70% of people park on the road anyway.

anyway...........


The point I was making about "right to light" is it's just a nonsense, as long as we have people working in a mindset that people have "rights" that tell others what they can do on their land, based on non physical reasons, nothing will change, NOTHING.