Planning rules on extensions to be relaxed 'to boost economy

[SaladFingers]

Another problem with the development or change of use and change of the times is the parking problems created by chopping semis or terraced into flats.

Parking is hard enough for those who have terraced houses, but the problem is shared out to other people, when it's decided to park down someone elses street, causing many issues.

 

[frank999]

Yes, Shoe Boxes they are.

I would suggest we all look to Germany, no city with a population greater than 1.5mil (apart from Berlin which has 3mil), the population spread far wider throughout the rural landscape.
If you look inside even the most basic small flat there - its quite spacious in comparison to what we have here - (I dont know if thats due to government guidelines - be interesting to know) - in fact the whole urban environment just seems a million miles away from what we have here, apart from in the centre of some big cities like Berlin or Hamburg).

BUT - when you drive around the rural areas of Germany you realise - its just actually suburbia in the trees - they seem to have lost any 'wild countryside they had. In the South East here in England we are approaching that in the shires surrounding London, and god forbid they should remove that excellent bit of planning - the green belt, but I think its all comes back to density and distribution of population. (and wealth ? ... I believe London redistributes a huge sum of its 'profits' back to other areas of the country).
I think we should take note of Italy (and possibly Spain) as an example of how not to follow, I get the impression planning controls are quite relaxed (either through lack of enforcement or corruption - in Italy at least) - blighting whole areas with unrestricted development.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Ooh one step closer? http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2012/nov12/151112/151112_1

 

[rjm2k]

Makes me wonder what the real agenda behind this is, they talked about the 6m and 8m change for residential but there are an awful lot more questions than that in the response form.

 

[Dannyice]

Well judging by that by the time we are ready to build ( next summer at the earliest ) we will be able to have our 4m out

I wonder if the person that told us we were allowed to go out 6m did so on the basis of this soon coming in to play.....Would explain why we were told we are allowed to go out 6m.

 

[SimonH2]

And I notice there's also a proposal to ease the requirements for broadband infrastructure - that means making it harder for people to stop the new green boxes needed for FTTC. That'll please the people who want it, really annoy those who don't want the boxes - and especially annoy those who think that complaining will magically make it possible to install the service without a need for any equipment !

 

[geraldthehamster]

Makes me wonder what the real agenda behind this is, they talked about the 6m and 8m change for residential but there are an awful lot more questions than that in the response form.

I wonder which bodies, if any, will express themselves in favour of the PD extension. The local authorities seem to be set against it. Personally I'll be watching with interest (I only want 5 metres; 8 metres would be silly as my house isn't 8 metres deep to start with).

Cheers
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Many would argue 5m is silly.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Many would argue 5m is silly.

Perhaps they'd like to respond to the consultation.

Cheers
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I shall be.

 

[SimonH2]

I can see it being contentious no matter what.

Apart from the effects of your neighbour suddenly being able to build out 8m along your garden fence, I can see a lot of "upset" that people who have the situation and the money to take advantage will be able to do something that others won't be able to if (for example) they won't have the money available until after this is over.
I know there's always an element of "the rules change, live with it", but I thing this will be worse than that.

On the other hand, if it improved the chances of getting FTTC serving my house (one of the proposals being to ease installation of green boxes) - I'm all for that

 

[tony1851]

The 6m/8m proposal will, of course, be watered down under pressure from local planning authorities and various NIMBY groups.
Councils will object - ostensibly on planning grounds - but in reality to preserve their work load and jobs.
My guess is that the limits will end up less than this, perhaps 5m/6m?.
There are less contentious ways of reducing the number of planning applications; some anomalies in the p.d. rules could be addressed, such as the 'wrap-round' side and rear extension.

 

[rjm2k]

It's not looking too good (thankfully!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20783367

 

[tony1851]

It's not looking too good (thankfully!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20783367[/QUOTE]

Why does it appear that everyone is against these proposals?

3m is a ridiculous maximum for an extension, when you take into account the thickness of the walls.

If it brings more work to the construction industry, and less opportunity for Councils to make easy money, then personally I'm all for it.

 

[noseall]

What do you think will win in the end.

Economics or "outstanding natural beauty"?

One thing is for sure that when the construction industry and the property market are buoyant then the economy thrives.

...or is it that a thriving economy buoys up the construction industry....?