Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Damik

Changes In The Planning Process

Recommended Posts

from comments on the main page:

http://www.housepric...tment-40235.php

2. flashman said...

We'll be seeing a lot more of these 'disappointments' because the central government is now busy swatting away local council objections. As I posted a few weeks ago, the game now is to ignore the usual council suggestion that you withdraw your application because it is 'likely to be rejected'. Once upon a time those words terrorised developers but now that the government have centralised the appeal process you just run out the clock and wait for the central government appeals office to approve it. They'll approve anything remotely reasonable and some things that aren't.

It's a shame the government didn't pay any attention when they were first told about the impending housing crisis because a house building strategy takes time to formulate and the crisis is now upon us. Fortunately the government and the opposition are now feverishly working on plans to ramp up build and we're going to see a lot of dissapointed NIMBYs

3. libertas said...

Understand that localism is globalism. They balkanise districts into neighbourhood groups that have no power, and they can only make decisions so long as they are in the national, EU and united nations framework. For example, if the Council doesn't provide a 5 year housing supply, Green Belts and land outside village boundaries CANNOT be protected.

What we are seeing is a dismantling of planning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This must be the game changer we have been waiting for last 10 years. Can other please confirm and add more information ????

Edited by Damik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from comments on the main page:

http://www.housepric...tment-40235.php

2. flashman said...

We'll be seeing a lot more of these 'disappointments' because the central government is now busy swatting away local council objections. As I posted a few weeks ago, the game now is to ignore the usual council suggestion that you withdraw your application because it is 'likely to be rejected'. Once upon a time those words terrorised developers but now that the government have centralised the appeal process you just run out the clock and wait for the central government appeals office to approve it. They'll approve anything remotely reasonable and some things that aren't.

It's a shame the government didn't pay any attention when they were first told about the impending housing crisis because a house building strategy takes time to formulate and the crisis is now upon us. Fortunately the government and the opposition are now feverishly working on plans to ramp up build and we're going to see a lot of dissapointed NIMBYs

3. libertas said...

Understand that localism is globalism. They balkanise districts into neighbourhood groups that have no power, and they can only make decisions so long as they are in the national, EU and united nations framework. For example, if the Council doesn't provide a 5 year housing supply, Green Belts and land outside village boundaries CANNOT be protected.

What we are seeing is a dismantling of planning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This must be the game changer we have been waiting for last 10 years. Can other please confirm and add more information ????

anybody any inside info or confirmation ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All councils had to carry out a SHLAA

any idea how many buidling plots they HAVE to provide for next year or is it 5 years?

1, 10, 100, 1000, 1% of the current housing stock, 10% of the current housing stock ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This must be the game changer we have been waiting for last 10 years. Can other please confirm and add more information ????

I had a good look at this for one of my applications. I was told my application wouldn't succeed so waited for the rejection and went to the government planning inspectorate for an appeal. My appeal was based on the "Sustainable Development" principle in the NPPF.

The bit I missed was that the council still had one year after the NPPF was introduced to get their policies sorted out. So the appeal got refused.

That one year period is probably up by now so appeals are much more likely to succeed. Appeals involves costs for the council so I expect they will tend to approve more.

Of course, if there is a lot more planning permissions granted, good luck getting the bodies to build it for you at a sensible price. There aren't enough skilled workers to build the traditional way any more.

Rather than going to University, bricklaying will be the skill to go for if there is a building boom. (Being an electrician probably better as they don't tend to get wet, bodies don't wear out and can work in all weathers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a good look at this for one of my applications. I was told my application wouldn't succeed so waited for the rejection and went to the government planning inspectorate for an appeal. My appeal was based on the "Sustainable Development" principle in the NPPF.

The bit I missed was that the council still had one year after the NPPF was introduced to get their policies sorted out. So the appeal got refused.

That one year period is probably up by now so appeals are much more likely to succeed. Appeals involves costs for the council so I expect they will tend to approve more.

Of course, if there is a lot more planning permissions granted, good luck getting the bodies to build it for you at a sensible price. There aren't enough skilled workers to build the traditional way any more.

Rather than going to University, bricklaying will be the skill to go for if there is a building boom. (Being an electrician probably better as they don't tend to get wet, bodies don't wear out and can work in all weathers)

I hope that large builders are watching this like a hawk; also perhaps they can source workforce from abroad if required

anything to create more supply and top the bubble in London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any idea how many buidling plots they HAVE to provide for next year or is it 5 years?

1, 10, 100, 1000, 1% of the current housing stock, 10% of the current housing stock ???

There are public meetings that you can go to in your area, and online consultation.

All I can comment on, is Barnsley.

77% of the area is greenbelt. 20 000 homes over the 15 years. 464 potential sites. To be built on at a density of 35 housing units per hectare. Some brownfield, some greenbelt (or possibly greenfield?)

The 464 sites could accommodate 40000 dwellings at 35 per hectare.

Somebody at the local meeting was a landowner, complaining his land had fallen in value and that it wasn't profitable to develop. I raised my hand, and pointed out to the room, that an artificial scarcity of land with PP had increased prices well above natural value, and to stimulate building, land prices needed to be brought down, in particular land with PP, and that if people who had bought in a bubble lost out, that was their problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are public meetings that you can go to in your area, and online consultation.

All I can comment on, is Barnsley.

77% of the area is greenbelt. 20 000 homes over the 15 years. 464 potential sites. To be built on at a density of 35 housing units per hectare. Some brownfield, some greenbelt (or possibly greenfield?)

The 464 sites could accommodate 40000 dwellings at 35 per hectare.

Somebody at the local meeting was a landowner, complaining his land had fallen in value and that it wasn't profitable to develop. I raised my hand, and pointed out to the room, that an artificial scarcity of land with PP had increased prices well above natural value, and to stimulate building, land prices needed to be brought down, in particular land with PP, and that if people who had bought in a bubble lost out, that was their problem.

How quickly did you have to escape to survive after saying that?:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are public meetings that you can go to in your area, and online consultation.

All I can comment on, is Barnsley.

77% of the area is greenbelt. 20 000 homes over the 15 years. 464 potential sites. To be built on at a density of 35 housing units per hectare. Some brownfield, some greenbelt (or possibly greenfield?)

The 464 sites could accommodate 40000 dwellings at 35 per hectare.

Somebody at the local meeting was a landowner, complaining his land had fallen in value and that it wasn't profitable to develop. I raised my hand, and pointed out to the room, that an artificial scarcity of land with PP had increased prices well above natural value, and to stimulate building, land prices needed to be brought down, in particular land with PP, and that if people who had bought in a bubble lost out, that was their problem.

Outstanding!

Barnsley has about 70k inhabitants, so about 30k houses.

20k of houses per 15 years is about 1300 houses per year; what is about 4.3% of the current stock per year.

Does it really mean that the planing deadlock has been broken? Is it some kind of government requirement for councils to provide about 4% of the building plots every year ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will these changes put an end to the indentikit new build estates with houses crammed in?

I've read these are the natural reaction to PP and land-banking.

Being able to build 'proper' houses with land/space would definitely be a game changer.

Enough to make me want to stay in this country!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are public meetings that you can go to in your area, and online consultation.

All I can comment on, is Barnsley.

77% of the area is greenbelt. 20 000 homes over the 15 years. 464 potential sites. To be built on at a density of 35 housing units per hectare. Some brownfield, some greenbelt (or possibly greenfield?)

The 464 sites could accommodate 40000 dwellings at 35 per hectare.

Somebody at the local meeting was a landowner, complaining his land had fallen in value and that it wasn't profitable to develop. I raised my hand, and pointed out to the room, that an artificial scarcity of land with PP had increased prices well above natural value, and to stimulate building, land prices needed to be brought down, in particular land with PP, and that if people who had bought in a bubble lost out, that was their problem.

Superb. Hope you got thunderous applause?

35 per hectare is horribly cramped. Say that we do ever get the 200,00 houses per year built that we need - if they are all tiny rabbit hutches so close together that you can touch your neighbour's wall, we're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb. Hope you got thunderous applause?

35 per hectare is horribly cramped. Say that we do ever get the 200,00 houses per year built that we need - if they are all tiny rabbit hutches so close together that you can touch your neighbour's wall, we're screwed.

They're proposing 40 houses per hectare at a site near Cambridge, and that's only the average across a large site, some will have more space.

http://tumihawkins.org.uk/council-releases-new-shlaa-assesment-with-revised-data-for-bourn-airfield-development

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're proposing 40 houses per hectare at a site near Cambridge, and that's only the average across a large site, some will have more space.

http://tumihawkins.o...eld-development

They mention there new 11 000 houses. Do you think it is significant? Do you think it can topple the supply/demand equation and decrease prices ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding!

Barnsley has about 70k inhabitants, so about 30k houses.

20k of houses per 15 years is about 1300 houses per year; what is about 4.3% of the current stock per year.

Does it really mean that the planing deadlock has been broken? Is it some kind of government requirement for councils to provide about 4% of the building plots every year ???

That would mean over a million new homes every year - so I can't think that will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding!

Barnsley has about 70k inhabitants, so about 30k houses.

20k of houses per 15 years is about 1300 houses per year; what is about 4.3% of the current stock per year.

Does it really mean that the planing deadlock has been broken? Is it some kind of government requirement for councils to provide about 4% of the building plots every year ???

230k.+

Pretty sure they have been building about 100 per year as it is.

So no real change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb. Hope you got thunderous applause?

35 per hectare is horribly cramped. Say that we do ever get the 200,00 houses per year built that we need - if they are all tiny rabbit hutches so close together that you can touch your neighbour's wall, we're screwed.

A few looked grumpy, a couple smiled and nodded, most people just looked a bit confused, I had stuttered a little.

35 per hectare doesn't seem to bad to me. It's about 16 an acre, which is what size plots, quite a lot of houses in the 1930s were built on. It's less dense than many current housing estates, particularly the new ones.

The idea is to have better housing with more space they said. I asked if there would be minimum space standards like the Parker-Morris ones, to ensure, decent sized properties were built, else we could end up with small houses with big gardens. There is no minimum space standards.

I also asked about allotment provision - they have not considered the provision of new allotments to go with the housing. I need to look through the plans, I think some of the proposed housing sites ARE allotments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They mention there new 11 000 houses. Do you think it is significant? Do you think it can topple the supply/demand equation and decrease prices ???

In the council planning document linked to on that site, there are new proposals for no less than 54, 351 houses detailed, all within about ten miles of Cambridge. It simply isn't supportable, the town could not cope with such a huge increase in population nearby, and I've no idea where they expect the jobs to come from. Not all of them will come to fruition, of course, but South Cambridgeshire has already seen massive building projects approved/built in the last few years (Cambourne 4,200, Trumpington Meadows 1200 houses, Northstowe 10,000 houses and several other large developments.)

These do not seem to have dented prices at all, rather it appears that people can sell up in London and march north and price the locals out. I'm not suprised by the "nimby" phenomenon, people don't want their surroundings turned into a new megalopolis of rabbit hutches interconnected by pay-to-use roads and sparse public transport (misguided bus/A14 proposals).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the council planning document linked to on that site, there are new proposals for no less than 54, 351 houses detailed, all within about ten miles of Cambridge. It simply isn't supportable, the town could not cope with such a huge increase in population nearby, and I've no idea where they expect the jobs to come from. Not all of them will come to fruition, of course, but South Cambridgeshire has already seen massive building projects approved/built in the last few years (Cambourne 4,200, Trumpington Meadows 1200 houses, Northstowe 10,000 houses and several other large developments.)

These do not seem to have dented prices at all, rather it appears that people can sell up in London and march north and price the locals out. I'm not suprised by the "nimby" phenomenon, people don't want their surroundings turned into a new megalopolis of rabbit hutches interconnected by pay-to-use roads and sparse public transport (misguided bus/A14 proposals).

Funny isn't it. Although we're a capitalist countey and have a totally free market for land, it seems to behave exactly like a planned market. Poorly built houses in the wrong places, controlled by government planners with massive shortages.

It's definitely a free market though, osbrown wouldn't hear of any of that socialist nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the council planning document linked to on that site, there are new proposals for no less than 54, 351 houses detailed, all within about ten miles of Cambridge. It simply isn't supportable, the town could not cope with such a huge increase in population nearby, and I've no idea where they expect the jobs to come from. Not all of them will come to fruition, of course, but South Cambridgeshire has already seen massive building projects approved/built in the last few years (Cambourne 4,200, Trumpington Meadows 1200 houses, Northstowe 10,000 houses and several other large developments.)

These do not seem to have dented prices at all, rather it appears that people can sell up in London and march north and price the locals out. I'm not suprised by the "nimby" phenomenon, people don't want their surroundings turned into a new megalopolis of rabbit hutches interconnected by pay-to-use roads and sparse public transport (misguided bus/A14 proposals).

The new houses in Trumpington are just ridiculous. They are shoehorned in along a particularly ugly stretch of land between the M11 and the hospital site.

They are asking over £400-500k for these small homes with barely any land and they are selling like hot cakes.

Against my advice some relatives have bought a flat to rent out. £280k for a 2 bedder which would rent for £1k a month max (and nearer £800 after costs in reality) in the development. Before it is even completed the prices of the other units in the block have been raised to £315k. They could probably sell before they ever rent it out for a £30k profit. If that isn't boom territory what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new houses in Trumpington are just ridiculous. They are shoehorned in along a particularly ugly stretch of land between the M11 and the hospital site.

They are asking over £400-500k for these small homes with barely any land and they are selling like hot cakes.

Against my advice some relatives have bought a flat to rent out. £280k for a 2 bedder which would rent for £1k a month max (and nearer £800 after costs in reality) in the development. Before it is even completed the prices of the other units in the block have been raised to £315k. They could probably sell before they ever rent it out for a £30k profit. If that isn't boom territory what is?

higher, the better; they will fall more

my biggest fear is the Japanese stagnation - 2% down every year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny isn't it. Although we're a capitalist countey and have a totally free market for land, it seems to behave exactly like a planned market. Poorly built houses in the wrong places, controlled by government planners with massive shortages.

It's definitely a free market though, osbrown wouldn't hear of any of that socialist nonsense.

My dad took me to see a new development the other day because he said he was shocked. It was so oppressive. It's basically 200+ properties, 3 storeys high, jammed together a couple of feet apart on narrow roads, with restricted park, - with green fields all around and views to the horizon. It's like being taunted.

I guess this is common but I'd not been to one before.

Edited by oldsport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Council doesn't provide a 5 year housing supply, Green Belts and land outside village boundaries CANNOT be protected. What we are seeing is a dismantling of planning.

It seems that this is really the case across the whole England. This is close to east M25:

http://www.thisistot...l#axzz2iIWDOMvz

Residents of West Horndon have signed a petition against Brentwood Borough Council's local development plan which proposes to treble the size of their village with 1,500 new homes. With the backing of nearly the entire village, West Horndon parish council say they will accept no more than around 500 new homes built on brown field sites.

So perhaps in 6 months we should see a flood of planning permissions across the country including hot spots like M25 ... :lol::lol::lol:

Edited by Damik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody at the local meeting was a landowner, complaining his land had fallen in value and that it wasn't profitable to develop. I raised my hand, and pointed out to the room, that an artificial scarcity of land with PP had increased prices well above natural value, and to stimulate building, land prices needed to be brought down, in particular land with PP, and that if people who had bought in a bubble lost out, that was their problem.

..and then you made a run for it? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that this is really the case across the whole England. This is close to east M25:

http://www.thisistot...l#axzz2iIWDOMvz

Residents of West Horndon have signed a petition against Brentwood Borough Council's local development plan which proposes to treble the size of their village with 1,500 new homes. With the backing of nearly the entire village, West Horndon parish council say they will accept no more than around 500 new homes built on brown field sites.

So perhaps in 6 months we should see a flood of planning permissions across the country including hot spots like M25 ... :lol::lol::lol:

Yes and no. I attended a meeting discussing the role of planning and Green Belt, the principal speaker was Nick Boles. The idea is that councils have to provide a coherent plan detailing how they intend to cater for their projected needs, and these projected needs extend five years into the future. This blueprint is called the 'Local Plan', and is partly enacted to allow local authorities the flexibility to assess and address future needs coherently, without having to wait for a particular planning application to land on their desk- they can earmark particular areas for development/protection etc without necessarily having anyone interested in doing so at the point the Local Plan is enacted. It is emminently sensible in this regard, in my view, although the success with which a Local Plan achieves is largely dependent on the assessment of needs. The standards for these are assessments are nationally agreed, and I know very little about them so cannot comment on how well they represent the future requirements.

The key 'stick' from central Governments to Local Authorities, which is what we are seeing in some places, is that if the Local Plan is not in place then the ability to refuse planning permissions is severly impaired, ultimately. Local Authorities whose Local Plan is formulated and approved can refuse applications for planning permission in areas outside those earmarked for development on the basis that they have a credible plan for meeting their needs over the next five years. If they do not have an approved plan in place their line of defence is much weakened.

The key point that I took from the meeting is that the best way to oust applications for planning permission is to have a Local Plan in place, the formulation of which will inevitably earmark land for development.

I learned a great deal in the meeting and I think the basic thrust of the Local Plans are a good idea, whether they manage to result in the development we need remains to be seen. I was heartened to hear from people living in Cheshire villages arguing the the council wasn't letting them to build more housing in their village as a bad thing, and quizzing Boles on how to make them change their mind.

That said, Boles then went on to defend HTB when I asked him about it in the Q&A at the end of the meeting. Numpty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.