Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Dave Beans

Homeowners Will Get To Grant Themselves Planning Permission In Radical Overhaul Of Rules

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335837/New-planning-rules-set-allow-neighbourhoods-home-owners-freedom.html

New planning rules will give neighbourhoods more influence over the kind of developments they want in their areas, it was revealed today.

The change would hand some of the planning responsibilities currently exercised by councils over to new officially recognised neighbourhood groups in a bid to cut back on red tape. And it could result in homeowners being given the freedom to build extensions, add a storey or a conservatory to their homes or install driveways without planning permission.

Residents would also gain the power to approve or reject proposals for new housing developments, schools and other public buildings in their areas - with incentives for communities which agree to new homes being built. The proposals are included in a Localism Bill due to be published by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles within the next few days.

Mr Clark said: 'This Government has ambitious proposals to make the system fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century.'

The Bill is expected to allow groups of householders to apply to be recognised as 'neighbourhoods', covering a group of streets or larger areas. There would be a presumption that local authorities will approve the status. Officially established neighbourhoods could then prepare 'neighbourhood plans' which would be put to referendums. If approved, the plans would have to be accepted by the council. The groups would also be allowed to draw up categories of development which could be carried out without planning permission - such as extensions or loft conversions.

Mr Clark, told the Sunday Telegraph: 'This Government has ambitious proposals to make the system fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Above all, we want to change the philosophy behind local planning.

'We want to move away from a system with significant elements of imposition from above, to one with participation and involvement at its heart - not just warm words, or a commitment in principle, but real opportunities for people to have a say.

'We also want to move away from a system that seeks to resolve the different needs of different groups at a local level by imposing choices from above, towards one which enables a mature debate at local level.'

The paper also reported that the Bill will pave the way for elected mayors in 12 cities: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've always said.

Find small village of 30 people + 50 people who want a home.

Buy land next to village

All 50 people register to vote at one address (rental).

Obtain planning permission!

Job done, nimbys OVERRULED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've always said.

Find small village of 30 people + 50 people who want a home.

Buy land next to village

All 50 people register to vote at one address (rental).

Obtain planning permission!

Job done, nimbys OVERRULED

nice one. But I think there is maximum number of people you can register at one address. Am I right? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'We also want to move away from a system that seeks to resolve the different needs of different groups at a local level by imposing choices from above, towards one which enables a mature debate at local level.'

Went to a planning public meeting re a school extension recently. I was quite shocked by the frothing at the mouth NIMBY 'residents committee' who presented every conceivable (and mostly quite bonkers) arguments why it shouldn't go ahead.

I saw absolutely no evidence whatsoever of debate, let alone a mature one. I realised rather that many of the people I live amongst and had hitherto imagined were quite reasonable people were in fact fascist psychopaths with no sense of respect or accomodation towards their fellow neighbours, let alone anyone from 'outside of the area'.

Most 'neighbours' appear to hate each other with a passion.

This gives a legalised outlet to vent such hatred and will be an unmitigated disaster.

Mark my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hilarious. NIMBY nirvana.

With the current system at least there is an impartial hearing of objections. So you can't just say you don't like it and object for no reason.

All those new builds overlooking the remainder of the nice green field will block any further developments. It'll exasperate the nation of the selfish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've always said.

Find small village of 30 people + 50 people who want a home.

Buy land next to village

All 50 people register to vote at one address (rental).

Obtain planning permission!

Job done, nimbys OVERRULED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hilarious. NIMBY nirvana.

With the current system at least there is an impartial hearing of objections. So you can't just say you don't like it and object for no reason.

All those new builds overlooking the remainder of the nice green field will block any further developments. It'll exasperate the nation of the selfish.

What amazes me is that the Tories think that this will make getting permission for new dvelopents easier.

They must be thinkng of a different planet than the one I live on!

Edited by tim123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at it impartially, it gives power to the people. Unfortunately for the people here who want large house building programs they are probably still in the minority, so I agree that planning is probably less likely to go through under this system. That said, presumably the councils will still have power of veto and an agenda of their own to pursue.. I expect this is more about freeing up money and resources in the planning departments by allowing local groups to sort out squabbles over extensions and trivialities.

It also illustrates why it is a difficult area politically. Some would argue that the best long term strategy would be more housing, however, the majority of people presumably (when asked to make a choice) choose against. As a politician you are trying to push through legislation against the will of the majority of the electorate which is never a good longer term election winning strategy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to buy shares in Tena! I can only imagine how Tena Lady’s will be flying off the shelves with this.

This is open season for middle aged, middle class, NIMBY busy-bodies. They must be wetting themselves in anticipation. They’ll now have something to do when their husband’s out playing golf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

getting to vote on it seems better than some patriarchal authority deciding the issue for me.

Sounds good to me, and TBH it is all part of an encouraging narrative of devolving power to local people on local issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

getting to vote on it seems better than some patriarchal authority deciding the issue for me.

Sounds good to me, and TBH it is all part of an encouraging narrative of devolving power to local people on local issues.

With clearly defined ways of deciding which people should be allowed to be local and which should be excluded?

All you have done is given another group the same patriarchal authority over others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at it impartially, it gives power to the people. Unfortunately for the people here who want large house building programs they are probably still in the minority, so I agree that planning is probably less likely to go through under this system. That said, presumably the councils will still have power of veto and an agenda of their own to pursue.. I expect this is more about freeing up money and resources in the planning departments by allowing local groups to sort out squabbles over extensions and trivialities.

It also illustrates why it is a difficult area politically. Some would argue that the best long term strategy would be more housing, however, the majority of people presumably (when asked to make a choice) choose against. As a politician you are trying to push through legislation against the will of the majority of the electorate which is never a good longer term election winning strategy!

There will still be fairly large scale house building, but the numbers originally planned to be be built by Liebor (via the RSS - the regional spatial strategy) are to be reduced by the ConDems... Certainly in my area, the numbers planned to be built by 2026 are looking to be dropped by around 3,000..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a personal perspective I think this sounds great, the proposed housing development in our village will almost certainly fail 8 showboxes squashed onto a piece of land best suited to 2 maybe 3 properties. This is being pushed by the chairman of the parish council and the land most surprisingly belongs to a developer who has built several other clumps of shoeboxes and according to rumour built the extension of several local councillors - now a few years ago that land belonged to a local resident who tried and failed on several occasions to build on it - blocked by the parish council.

However several other projects that I am aware of where people want to build one off houses of a variety of sizes, including one guy who wants to build something for his two boys are now likely to go ahead as they already have the blessing of their nighbours and have been blocked by the parish council.

Buying off nimbys is better than buying off politicians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying off nimbys is better than buying off politicians

Of course, with an eye to justice, the payment should actually be in the opposite direction. If you want special government powers to interfere with and restrict other people, you pay for those powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to a planning public meeting re a school extension recently. I was quite shocked by the frothing at the mouth NIMBY 'residents committee' who presented every conceivable (and mostly quite bonkers) arguments why it shouldn't go ahead.

I saw absolutely no evidence whatsoever of debate, let alone a mature one. I realised rather that many of the people I live amongst and had hitherto imagined were quite reasonable people were in fact fascist psychopaths with no sense of respect or accomodation towards their fellow neighbours, let alone anyone from 'outside of the area'.

Most 'neighbours' appear to hate each other with a passion.

This gives a legalised outlet to vent such hatred and will be an unmitigated disaster.

Mark my words.

That is why I prefer a top down approach. Unelected, unaccountable officials can make decisions in the national interest of all people.. the ignorant, selfish, shortsighted masses can worry about other things, if they are powerless to stop change from above.

Democracy is one of those things that sounds like a great idea, until you do what you did and go to local meetings and see people like those NIMBYs first hand. Imo every great idea gets pushed against the will of the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or do most people here support the idea of high density living. Because I don't, property developers want to garden grab and build tiny rabbit hutch blocks of flat just to boost their profits. A very tiny percentage of UK land is actually used for housing and I feel that what is needed is MORE land for developing new communities which balance housing and employment.

With the current new homes targets nimbys have more power to prevent commercial development than homes where developers can side step them by going to appeal so still getting their required development. I notice that most housing developments of recent years have excluded any link between local housing and commercial development which should be providing the jobs for these new residents. These new communities are our ghost towns like the ones of the Irish housing boom.This Localism Bill has some advantages but unless very carefully written could end up doing yet more damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The localism stuff will amount to nothing, those type of rules never do.

The changing of the density limits will though, we might at last lose the ugly estates of shoe box houses and will start to get something people actually want to buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be all for this - with the proviso that any democratic centre is also a taxation centre. I think they would soon change their tune on most planning issues when they can see the fiscal benefits of higher housing density.

+1

If local spending was funded as much as possible from council tax we would see a very rapid change in attitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I prefer a top down approach. Unelected, unaccountable officials can make decisions in the national interest of all people.. the ignorant, selfish, shortsighted masses can worry about other things, if they are powerless to stop change from above.

Democracy is one of those things that sounds like a great idea, until you do what you did and go to local meetings and see people like those NIMBYs first hand. Imo every great idea gets pushed against the will of the majority.

Please use this as your tagline so that infrequent visitors have an insight into where you are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

No they don't. They think it will shore up their middle class NIMBY voting constituency.

It's just another money-saving measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Is it me or do most people here support the idea of high density living. Because I don't, property developers want to garden grab and build tiny rabbit hutch blocks of flat just to boost their profits. A very tiny percentage of UK land is actually used for housing and I feel that what is needed is MORE land for developing new communities which balance housing and employment.

With the current new homes targets nimbys have more power to prevent commercial development than homes where developers can side step them by going to appeal so still getting their required development. I notice that most housing developments of recent years have excluded any link between local housing and commercial development which should be providing the jobs for these new residents. These new communities are our ghost towns like the ones of the Irish housing boom.This Localism Bill has some advantages but unless very carefully written could end up doing yet more damage.

Remember that all that green you see stretching to the horizon when you fly to your holiday belongs to the same few familes who have been guarding it for ten centuries. It ain't going to be built on now. They release it in tiny blocks to maintain their wealth and supremacy. They can't lose. The less land they release the more expensive land becomes and as they own all the land they win. If they release more land they make the money at that point from the developers. The future of British residential dwellings is highrises.

Edited by Tecumseh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What amazes me is that the Tories think that this will make getting permission for new dvelopents easier.

They must be thinkng of a different planet than the one I live on!

The Tories don't think anything about what it will do for new developments - they don't give a sh*t about the number of people wanting a house, the preservation of character of an area or the renovation of existing houseing stock. What they do know is that a lot of people who feel that the planning law doesn't favour them really hate planning permission.

I have predicted before that austerity measures could be softened for the important voters (Tories and midland marginals) by

[1] easing planning permission so said voters can pull down draughty Georgian houses and built tacky neo-Georgian ones with even-tackier neo-Victorian "orangeries" tacked on.

[2] raising the speed limit to 80, or 90 for anyone with an expensive car ("experienced drivers")

[3] closing down Motability (a registered charity!) and, for preference, abolishing Disability Living Allowance since no one wants to give money to crips and idiots in difficult times, or scroungers at any time. And since the government is quietly feeding black propaganda to the DM, hardly anyone (including Iain Duncan Smith) knows that DLA is a benefit aimed at those in work first, and those out of work secondarily.

They're clearly working on [1] and [3], and I believe that the promise to reduce the number of speed cameras is a back-door concession on [2] - "you needn't stick to the speed limit unless you can see a police car."

db

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 276 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.