Ministers Hold Crisis Talks As It's Revealed New Planning Laws Could Lead To 40,000 Per Annum

[cashinmattress]

Lol.

You will be hard pressed to make 40,000 homes more unsightly than Britain's existing ex-council stock.

Just start charging people property tax based on built up area and quality of the build, at a fair rate.

That will nix it overnight.

[interestrateripoff]

Where exactly are these people going to get the money from?

Most extensions for the average house you'd be looking at between £20k - £40k.

[SHERWICK]

Where exactly are these people going to get the money from?

Most extensions for the average house you'd be looking at between £20k - £40k.

Diy?

[VeryMeanReversion]

The existing Permitted Development laws allow some rather large extensions. (planning jungle loopholes.

I had two years fighting with the planners due to a policy that means you can only extend a big house in the countryside, not a small house, even it is on very large plot. I bet someone with a big house thought that one up. If you are not in a village/town framework, you are considered countryside, even if you are on a private, planned estate.

By keeping bedroom count to 3 in a planning application, I managed to keep my house as officially small, even though it becomes 170sqm, nearly double the national average.

Since I hit that planning loophole/limit, I then clued up about permitted development which bypasses all planning policies. You just need a legal certificate (CLOPUD) which took half the time/cost of a planning application, no need to consult with neighbours and planners can't dictate the materials used or building style. (Pink Taj Mahal anybody?)

Using PD rights, I now have the legal certificate to add another 50sqm under class E and could later use Class D to join it to the house.

It appears that there will be no attempt to close the existing loopholes, just add some more.

If you are considering buying a house in future, you should make yourself aware of what you (or your neighbours) can do without planning permission. It can make tens of thousands of pounds of difference.

[Tired of Waiting]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309721/Ministers-hold-crisis-talks-revealed-planning-free-lead-40-000-extensions-year.html

(...)

Zac Goldsmith, the environmentalist Conservative MP, is leading the rebellion against controversial laws which will double the length of extensions that people can build in their gardens without planning permission.

(...)

Anti plan: Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP (...)

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zac_Goldsmith

Engaged to banking-heiress-Alice-Rothschild (after divorcing Ms "Bentley" ) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9721568/Conservative-MP-Zac-Goldsmith-is-secretly-engaged-to-banking-heiress-Alice-Rothschild.html

I am told that Goldsmith has come close to finalising the financial settlement between him and his former wife with the sale of Walreddon Manor, the family’s eight-bedroom country home set in 543 acres near Tavistock in Devon. Goldsmith put it on the market following his “quickie” divorce in 2010 with an original asking price – later reduced – of £7million.

Not sure what he saw on her. Must be her "personality".

Edited April 16, 2013 by Tired of Waiting

[The Spaniard]

Where exactly are these people going to get the money from?

Most extensions for the average house you'd be looking at between £20k - £40k.

They will borrow it into existence as bank loans secured against their houses.

This will help to maintain the broad money supply, along with QE and various other counter-deflation schemes.

[Snafu]

The existing Permitted Development laws allow some rather large extensions. (planning jungle loopholes.

I had two years fighting with the planners...

I copied that piece of text for future reference. Awesome.

[Tired of Waiting]

I copied that piece of text for future reference. Awesome.

+ 1

Me too.

Thanks VMR.

[Executive Sadman]

Almost all our most attractive buildings were built before planning was properly formalized in 1947. Its only since the state has been involved in planning that standards have fallen. Its not like planners dont pass ugly extentions anyway.

How dare statists like Goldsmith even suggest they are for smaller government. Utter totalitarians.

[EmpiricalBear]

Almost all our most attractive buildings were built before planning was properly formalized in 1947. Its only since the state has been involved in planning that standards have fallen. Its not like planners dont pass ugly extentions anyway.

How dare statists like Goldsmith even suggest they are for smaller government. Utter totalitarians.

Yep. In any case, the rich can persuade the planners, with the help of consultants, to permit all sorts of ugly monstrosities.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2059298_neighbours_anger_over_the_12_million_mansion (clearly visible as you drive up the hill, looks like a conference centre)

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1702785/Rowan-Atkinsons-5m-space-age-home.html (a run of the mill Meier design that looks like a design studio, no Villa Savoie this one)

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2444_hello_john_got_a_new_mansion (he got there in the end, I've seen the pictures)

[erranta]

Anti plan: Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP (...)

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....i/Zac_Goldsmith

Engaged to banking-heiress-Alice-Rothschild (after divorcing Ms "Bentley" ) http://www.telegraph...Rothschild.html

Not sure what he saw on her. Must be her "personality".

Tavistock is a name that constantly comes up researching Masons

Tavi province of Armenia

means 'good' in Aramaic - whilst 'they' are up to no good in my estimation (Satan worshippers amongst the Toffs)

Edited April 16, 2013 by erranta

[Bloo Loo]

Where exactly are these people going to get the money from?

Most extensions for the average house you'd be looking at between £20k - £40k.

They arent called the conservatory party for nothing.

[Tired of Waiting]

Almost all our most attractive buildings were built before planning was properly formalized in 1947. Its only since the state has been involved in planning that standards have fallen. Its not like planners dont pass ugly extentions anyway.

How dare statists like Goldsmith even suggest they are for smaller government. Utter totalitarians.

+ 1

I guess Mr Goldsmith has enough living space.

[Executive Sadman]

Reminds me of this post I made...

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=177580&view=findpost&p=909015151

How you can 'ruin' some humdrum 70s cul de suc that already has assorted street clutter including caravans taking up most the front garden,im not sure.

Another one that recently got me interested was this pleasantly priced/guided building in an attractive village (without permission to live in).

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38397376.html

Used to be a small surgery, shut due to not being viable, permission sought to turn it into a small home. Seems reasonable - there appears to be an identical building used as a home adjacent to it. Permission denied. Not because of the obvious reason that it might deprive a community of a surgery (although given it doesnt look ideal for a surgery, such a reason for a denial would in of itself seem spurious). No, it was denied because...

The proposed rear car parking, by virtue of its size, location and relationship with the proposed access would make for awkward manoeuvring; reduced options for car movement on entering and getting off the car park. No turning space is shown on site, and a garden width at between 5.8 and 6.5 metres makes turning a vehicle very difficult and unlikely to take place in reality. This would be likely to result in vehicles reversing onto Geeston Road. These manoeuvres are also likely to increase pressure for parking outside the site, resulting in a danger and inconvenience to other traffic and pedestrians. This in turn could adversely affect the residential amenity of the existing residential properties in the vicinity, particularly those to the northeast and southwest of the site. For these reasons, the proposal is considered not to have recognised the constraints of the site or related well to its surroundings and does not contribute positively to making this place better for people, or improve the character and quality of the immediate area and the way it functions, and is therefore contrary to saved Policies EN1 and HT6 of the Rutland Local Plan.

I mean, WTF? how many new housing estates have (if they have any front garden or driveway at all, most dont) room to turn a car around for each property?

And the basis of the decision is incorrect. As the highway code states, i should reverse into a side road/driveway, not onto the main carriageway as the planning denial assumes.

There is no parking pressure. All homes on that street have plentiful off road parking.

The road its on isnt even a through road with fast moving traffic/hazards. Its a dead end and a short road, providing access to no more than 20 buildings.

And one private residence is obviously likely to attract a lot less traffic than a commercial use. Change of use from business to residential would help that. Denying change of use is contrary to their aims .

So now it may well end up just being empty, with more fields gobbled up because of some insane planners perverse mind.

[VeryMeanReversion]

.... and is therefore contrary to saved Policies EN1 and HT6 of the Rutland Local Plan.

Local policies are even more vague than the Permitted Development laws. That eventually means you can find a whole load more loopholes (and traps).

Now that planning applications are online, it is much easier to find previously approved applications under the latest policies, then download the delegation reports. This will usually contains some "yes but, no but" statements about policy interpretations which can then be pointed out to the assigned planner.

Planners don't like having their decisions appealed to the inspectorate so make it clear that you will appeal any refusal.

I hope you all contributed to the recent development plan consultations. I made my "build more" comments in as many places as I could.

[Tired of Waiting]

Local policies are even more vague than the Permitted Development laws. That eventually means you can find a whole load more loopholes (and traps).

Now that planning applications are online, it is much easier to find previously approved applications under the latest policies, then download the delegation reports. This will usually contains some "yes but, no but" statements about policy interpretations which can then be pointed out to the assigned planner.

Planners don't like having their decisions appealed to the inspectorate so make it clear that you will appeal any refusal.

I hope you all contributed to the recent development plan consultations. I made my "build more" comments in as many places as I could.

Thanks again VMR, another v useful post.

[the shaping machine]

Another one that recently got me interested was this pleasantly priced/guided building in an attractive village (without permission to live in).

An attractive village if it didn't have an enormous cement factory at one end.

So now it may well end up just being empty, with more fields gobbled up because of some insane planners perverse mind.

I doubt it will remain empty in this area (contradicting myself it really is a very nice part of the UK). I can only assume the planners wanted some detail changed and are playing hard-ball?

[Tired of Waiting]

Anti plan: Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP (...)

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zac_Goldsmith

Engaged to banking-heiress-Alice-Rothschild (after divorcing Ms "Bentley" ) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9721568/Conservative-MP-Zac-Goldsmith-is-secretly-engaged-to-banking-heiress-Alice-Rothschild.html

(...)

"The second richest MP is listed as Zac Goldsmith, the Tory MP for Richmond Park, whose £75 million wealth comes from the late Sir James Goldsmith."

LINK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10021052/Tory-food-scraps-minister-is-richest-MP.html

[Tired of Waiting]

An attractive village if it didn't have an enormous cement factory at one end.

I doubt it will remain empty in this area (contradicting myself it really is a very nice part of the UK). I can only assume the planners wanted some detail changed and are playing hard-ball?

I agree, quite ugly. Where else should we put them though?