Planning rules on extensions to be relaxed 'to boost economy

[SimonH2]

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....?

The latter I think. The construction industry is in the gutter because there's no money about to pay for buildings. When there's more money about, things will pick up again - and round the cycle we go yet again.

In that article, there's a quote "If the change to permitted development rights is worth making, it should be permanent. If it is not, the change should not be made. ..." I'm inclined to agree with that - and the others that have correctly pointed out that it's a balancing act between a free for all on one hand with no protection for neighbours, and too much control on the other.
If these changes go through as a temporary measure, then it will assist those who have the money now to throw up extensions, while those that don't have the money now will not be able to follow suit when they have. That to me is unreasonable and unfair.

Just imagine you are in a terrace with narrow gardens, and both neighbours build out to the max under these proposals (is it 4m height they are allowed to go to ?) - it's going to significantly reduce the amenity of your own garden. And to then find that when you can afford to do the same, you've got to jump through hoops that your neighbours didn't ...

 

[luisdesign]

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.

You talk as though paying less than £200 to the council to assess an application is daylight robbery. This is a meagre amount of money for the amount of time and effort that a planning officer has to put in in order to assess an application. I'd be all for increasing the fees associated with applications (beyond the recent +15%) to make them much more realistic...

What I think is going to be a major issue is that if the rules are not "permanent" then people will need to invest in having proper designs drawn and apply for Certificates of Lawfulness in order to have full proof that extensions were carried out within the specified time periods. Trouble is that most people won't bother, unless of course the decision is made to ensure that all developments are carried out under a certificate...

Personally, there is a lot of talk about things that you will be allowed to do without talk about the restrictions that will be imposed (or retained) as well. The average London terrace for example would find it hard to build an 8m extension assuming that the 7m rear wall rule and or the 50% garden area rules are maintained.

 

[tony1851]

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.

You talk as though paying less than £200 to the council to assess an application is daylight robbery. This is a meagre amount of money for the amount of time and effort that a planning officer has to put in in order to assess an application. I'd be all for increasing the fees associated with applications (beyond the recent +15%) to make them much more realistic...
most people won't bother, unless of course the decision is made to ensure that all developments are carried out under a certificate...

We should only pay peanuts (assuming £200 is what you call peanuts) because most councils employ monkeys to deal with householder planning applications.
IMO it would be better if we scrapped the planning system altogether and went back to the system pre-1939.

 

[luisdesign]

We should only pay peanuts (assuming £200 is what you call peanuts) because most councils employ monkeys to deal with householder planning applications.
IMO it would be better if we scrapped the planning system altogether and went back to the system pre-1939.

I couldn't disagree with you more... and ultimately I think this smacks of someone who does not understand the processes that planning officers undertake during their assessment of applications.

(also, just to be clear, I'm not going to suggest that £200 is a small amount of money. However in the grand scheme of development the planning fees are but a tiny fraction of the expenditure and more than comfortably subsumed into the increase in property value associated with the application. This is aside from the fact that is not representative of the work done).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Tony once submitted a Building Regs submission for a domestic lean to extension and received 17 pages of conditions. But at least it wasn't a rejection. The BCO's still keep that submission to hand and print off copy's for their Christmas party.

 

[tony1851]

It is a fact of life that planning officers - particularly the younger ones dealing with householder applications - do not work hard. Unless, of course, that 9.30-4.30, with 1 hr+ for lunch, generous holidays, sick leave for a paper-cut, retirement at 60 and generous pensions etc represent a hard life.

If a planning officer is off sick, no-one else deals with his/her 'work'. Presumably if an officer passes away, his/her applications are binned.

I have been in the hallowed halls of planning offices on quite a few occasions, and my impresssion is that they are oases of calm. No-one hurries, groups of people stand chatting, and the impression is one of school on the last day of term.
If we have to choose jobs in the afterlife, I don't want an arduous job, or a worthwhile one, or a demanding one. I want an easy job - I want to be a planning officer.

 

[luisdesign]

My wife is a planning officer and you do not want to know the expletives she shouted when i read her your message... needless to say it goes something along the lines that 'people' (edited) like you are proof that planning officers dont get paid enough for what, and who, they have to deal with.

Personally i believe you have a complete misunderstanding of a planning officers role. Perhaps its a sympton of your past experiences but i can say it is at complete opposites to my own.

The point of course is your 'facts' are anything but that... oh, and you apparantly need dragging out of the dark ages...

 

[tony1851]

luisdesign;
I didn't mean to offend anyone.

I merely drew on my own experience of many years of dealings with LPAs. My own beliefs are that planning officers, like traffic wardens, don't contribute to the sum total of human happiness and certainly add nothing to the material wealth of the nation.

I was serious when I wrote that I would prefer the pre-1939 position. If anything was going to stimulate the economy it would be the lifting of the restrictions on development. The public-sector wage bill would also be somewhat lower.

If LPAs were to be abolished, your wife wouldn't then have to deal with people like me. We could then get on with our job of creating wealh instead of stifling it.

A futher benefit could be that your wife might then get a job which she might prefer.

 

[luisdesign]

luisdesign;
If LPAs were to be abolished, your wife wouldn't then have to deal with people like me. We could then get on with our job of creating wealh instead of stifling it.

I think much of the trouble is that it can be such a lottery with the different local authorities. There are things that I do baulk at... but its more about policy rather than conduct... (mostly).

I also think it is a case that many authorities are still not pro-development, as they should be. My wife is lucky to work for one of the most forward thinking London boroughs... and those types of councils tend to dismiss the old adage of "us vs them". for the most part my dealings with authorities have been quite similar but unfortunately it seems that the same cannot be said countrywide.

The idea that planning stifles development is symptomatic of the idea that planners are there to stop development, when their role is really to ensure that development does occur, but in a sustainable manner in line with forward thinking local and national policy. Where authorities are not doing this they should be challenged...

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If LA's can opt out and/or amend the limits this can confuse matters for those in the profession especially if you may be dealing with half a dozen or so different authorities.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2013/apr13/040413/04042013_1

 

[jeds]

It's a mash up. What a suprise.

 

[tony1851]

It's a mash up. What a suprise.

I don't quite see how it could be a 'mash-up'.

On one side, the Government clearly wants to push through reforms to the GPDO with the aim of stimulating building and the wider economy.

On the other side, LPAs don't want this at all, ostensibly on the grounds that it would affect amenity, but in reality to save their jobs.

LPAs can apply for Article 4 Directions if they perceive a problem with the new rules in their specific areas. However, the Minister responsible has the power to refuse an application.

If many LPAs tried this ruse to thwart the legislation, the Goverment has every right block the loophole. One hopes that Ministers will take a robust line on this.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You can be a little tiresome at times tony.

 

[tony1851]

You can be a little tiresome at times tony.

Howcome?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Would you have no limits on any domestic development?