Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Objective Developer

A Revision Of The Planning System

Recommended Posts

As some of you know, I work as a town planner, and as such get a fair amount of stick for the planning systems role in stoking HPI though land restrictions.

So, if the planning system were to be revised, as is suggested by Barker et al, what kinds of things would you like to see? I’d be genuinely interested to know as it seems like reform is coming anyway, and I’ll try my best to offer a response to the issues raised.

Cheers in advance…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[1] tree sound barriers. What are the rules on them?

We've got a bit of land the other side of the canal from us and they ripped down the mature trees that provided a sound barrier. They've applied for permission to fence it off now stating "no trees will be cut down"

Obviously because they've already cut the trees down.

There's supposed to be a earth bank and trees protecting us from noise - but what there is doesn't work so anything they're going to do over there will create noise over here.

If planning was relaxed they could presumably build anything they wanted there - a tesco for instance ( I think its supposed to be non food retail but is storage of metal cabins etc which obviously isn't retail.)

[2] What regulations are there for providing play areas on new build estates?

[3] What protects green spaces in an area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if the planning system were to be revised, as is suggested by Barker et al, what kinds of things would you like to see? I’d be genuinely interested to know as it seems like reform is coming anyway, and I’ll try my best to offer a response to the issues raised.

As you know OD, the planning system is currently being revised as we move from the Structure/Local Plan system towards Local Development Frameworks. This was meant to speed up the planning process and make it more flexible. So far, it has had the opposite effect. Since the 2004 Act, a handfull of Local Authorities have produced successfull Core Strategies. Meanwhile, the public has been exausted by endless "consultation" that seems to have no effect whatsoever on the outcomes. However once these frameworks are complete (in several years), we may have a sensible system, parts of which can be adapted when needed (which was impossible with the old system).

If Govt judges the new Framework system a failure, it can return to the Plans. If it is good in parts, it can be adapted. Buying Bear will tell you it can be abolished completely. What would seem particually silly, would be to introduce a whole new untried system, just when the previous billion pound adventure was starting to produce results. Which of course, is what will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As some of you know, I work as a town planner, and as such get a fair amount of stick for the planning systems role in stoking HPI though land restrictions.

So, if the planning system were to be revised, as is suggested by Barker et al, what kinds of things would you like to see? I’d be genuinely interested to know as it seems like reform is coming anyway, and I’ll try my best to offer a response to the issues raised.

Cheers in advance…

Let me or anyone else buy a plot of land in a town or village (even on the periphery of said town/village) and build a house of my choice (in keeping with the area, not an eyesore) on it. HPI destroyed in one easy move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1] tree sound barriers. What are the rules on them?

We've got a bit of land the other side of the canal from us and they ripped down the mature trees that provided a sound barrier. They've applied for permission to fence it off now stating "no trees will be cut down"

Obviously because they've already cut the trees down.

There's supposed to be a earth bank and trees protecting us from noise - but what there is doesn't work so anything they're going to do over there will create noise over here.

If planning was relaxed they could presumably build anything they wanted there - a tesco for instance ( I think its supposed to be non food retail but is storage of metal cabins etc which obviously isn't retail.)

[2] What regulations are there for providing play areas on new build estates?

[3] What protects green spaces in an area?

[1] Trees do not block sound I'm afraid. Earth banks do stop noise, but are unsightly, and are therefore covered in trees.

[2] Planning policy will have a requirement to provide a certain % of open space in new estates etc.

[3] Public open space should be protected by planning policy so long as it is designated as such; other types of open space may come under development pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me or anyone else buy a plot of land in a town or village (even on the periphery of said town/village) and build a house of my choice (in keeping with the area, not an eyesore) on it. HPI destroyed in one easy move.

A nice idea BUT:

Villages do not have the infrastructure to cope with large-scale density increases.

Out of town development leads to higher car dependancy (spreading out like in America destoys local communities as people need to drive to get anywhere).

The people who live in the village may not like your idea very much...

On the whole, I agree in part that we can make better use of our existing communities, through densification and better investment in town and village centres, but the politicians don't what to upset CPRE etc, as they have a lot of cash and clout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you know OD, the planning system is currently being revised as we move from the Structure/Local Plan system towards Local Development Frameworks. This was meant to speed up the planning process and make it more flexible. So far, it has had the opposite effect. Since the 2004 Act, a handfull of Local Authorities have produced successfull Core Strategies. Meanwhile, the public has been exausted by endless "consultation" that seems to have no effect whatsoever on the outcomes. However once these frameworks are complete (in several years), we may have a sensible system, parts of which can be adapted when needed (which was impossible with the old system).

If Govt judges the new Framework system a failure, it can return to the Plans. If it is good in parts, it can be adapted. Buying Bear will tell you it can be abolished completely. What would seem particually silly, would be to introduce a whole new untried system, just when the previous billion pound adventure was starting to produce results. Which of course, is what will happen.

Too true, I fear that the current thinking is change, but only for changes' sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone raised the point in the Metro letters column this morning - brown field sites. What can we do to ensure more sites are reused? The letter argued that companies buy up land and borrow against the value of the land as it increases. There is no incentive to develop this land but a land value tax could force the hand of owners. Cant say Ive heard of this idea. But I think most people would agree recycling old plots is ideal (appropriate clean-ups permitting!).

How safe is greenbelt land? I know its trendy to slag off the NIMBYs here but the reality is if any of us bought a country house we wouldnt want it to turn into a town house by massive development. Ive seen places that look out onto open fields etc and thought wow what a view! But if an estate popped up the attraction of living there would vanish.

I think its really important to preserve the character of our towns, and we should do so as long as there are alternatives. I guess paving over green sites is always going to be cheaper - and cheaper housing is more important to many, even if we create an environment noone would actually want to live in!

Edited by Orbital

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone raised the point in the Metro letters column this morning - brown field sites. What can we do to ensure more sites are reused? The letter argued that companies buy up land and borrow against the value of the land as it increases. There is no incentive to develop this land but a land value tax could force the hand of owners. Cant say Ive heard of this idea. But I think most people would agree recycling old plots is ideal (appropriate clean-ups permitting!).

How safe is greenbelt land? I know its trendy to slag off the NIMBYs here but the reality is if any of us bought a country house we wouldnt want it to turn into a town house by massive development. Ive seen places that look out onto open fields etc and thought wow what a view! But if an estate popped up the attraction of living there would vanish.

I think its really important to preserve the character of our towns, and we should do so as long as there are alternatives. I guess paving over green sites is always going to be cheaper - and cheaper housing is more important to many, even if we create an environment noone would actually want to live in!

Interestingly, there are targets for brownfield development (67% rings a bell), but you are right about the costs involved. As for a land tax - this is an idea that should work quite well, but implementation could be problem as there are not enough arbiters out there to do tha valuation work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As some of you know, I work as a town planner, and as such get a fair amount of stick for the planning systems role in stoking HPI though land restrictions.

So, if the planning system were to be revised, as is suggested by Barker et al, what kinds of things would you like to see? I’d be genuinely interested to know as it seems like reform is coming anyway, and I’ll try my best to offer a response to the issues raised.

Cheers in advance…

Stop allowing the building of those cr@ppy papier mache lego house persimmion estates. '3 bed semi detached with psudo poshbits stuck on' . Each bedroom measures 5 ft by 4.5 ft. and it may be semidetached and you can park your car on your own drive but cant open the doors to get out. How soul destroying are those places.

Build tenements a la edinburgh. Much higher density and great places to live. It cant be beyond modern building techniques to build them over a large underground car park as well. Also building them in a way so you can have huge communal gardens as in Notting hill.

I understand the sentiment about freeing up the country side for housing, but if that happens all we will do is cover the country side with aforementioned persimion newbuilds and or become a countrywide car dependent suburb as is happening to Ireland. Also as you increase the space to live more people will want to come here. Until the country really is full up. Also we should be trying to reduce the population to mare sustainable levels for the long term resource peaks coming our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone bought up an entire street would they get permission to knock all the houses down and eithe rbuild a huge house or build a supermarket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get each local council to specify the building style that they will allow and impose an allowable growth on each built up area, be it a village, town or city (say 1% a year). No planning application will be refused as long as it meets the building style. It will simply join the back of the queue and can be built when the land has been made available. Councils will be penalised if insufficient building takes place per year.

The building style could include density, whether buildings can be flats/houses, architectural styles, any new parks etc. By spreading the building out evenly, the impact on services will be significantly reduced compared with building all the new developments in a small area.

No particular land will be earmarked for building, so the huge cost of building land will hopefully reduce, you could just buy a field on the edge of a village, apply for planning permission and rent the land back to the farmer until the permission comes through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its really important to preserve the character of our towns, and we should do so as long as there are alternatives. I guess paving over green sites is always going to be cheaper - and cheaper housing is more important to many, even if we create an environment noone would actually want to live in!

You sound worried Orbital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How safe is greenbelt land? I know its trendy to slag off the NIMBYs here but the reality is if any of us bought a country house we wouldnt want it to turn into a town house by massive development. Ive seen places that look out onto open fields etc and thought wow what a view! But if an estate popped up the attraction of living there would vanish.

I think its really important to preserve the character of our towns, and we should do so as long as there are alternatives. I guess paving over green sites is always going to be cheaper - and cheaper housing is more important to many, even if we create an environment noone would actually want to live in!

The solution to the first point is to either buy up all the land as far as the eye can see or accept that people have to live somewhere and some may just live in your field of view.

Cheaper housing doesn't have to be crap housing... remember it is the artificially restricted supply of building land that causes insanely high house prices. You can have a (relatively) cheap quality home.

I'd like to see all planning restrictions for self build owner occupied under a certain size dropped. Particulary for low impact dwellings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for spoiling other people's views, if they like the view that much, they can buy it. Otherwise they should accept they don't own the land their view sits on and they are lucky to have any say what so ever over what happens with the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would get each local council to specify the building style that they will allow and impose an allowable growth on each built up area, be it a village, town or city (say 1% a year). No planning application will be refused as long as it meets the building style. It will simply join the back of the queue and can be built when the land has been made available. Councils will be penalised if insufficient building takes place per year.

Setting a limit for the growth part you mention above already happens. Each district of England is given an annual housing allocation by its Regional Assembly. Therefore Manchester is given an annual housing target of 3500 dwellings while a less dense area i.e. Lake Districy NP is given a figure of 117 per year. In theory, this allows local authorities to control the amount and types of housing built each year, with certain external controls by the Government Offices should they unjustifyably excede their "allocation".

This, again in theory, should mean that enough houses are built, in practice what happens is that planning permissions are granted and then the big house builder or whoever dont build the houses, leading to huge surplusses.

I think this is one of the key points of improving the supply of housing in this coutry, build the dwellings that have already been granted planning permssions, the numbers are astronomical.

Edited by Planner

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 350 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

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


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



×
×
  • 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.