insane changes to planning law

[Tim Lund]

it is dangerous to criticise stuff relying only on press releases. But the proposals on a temporary relaxation on the rearward extension of homes is really serious unless we get some protection in law (which would in itself invalidate the whole idea).

The people most likely to take advantage are those who have already been refused planning permission. They have the plans and the need and the money. We can assume a good lot of these were refused for good reason. Mostly, I guess, involving impact on neighbours and IME some true gothic horrors (without the gothic).

This sounds like a Steve Hilton idea come home. Problem is this sort of thing is not a problem in the wide open Californian environment he is used to.

Sydenham is another matter. Let's hope it is really a politician's cheap trick grabbing headlines with little content and no delivery. This can be a good thing.

Stuart

Good points. Any changes to planning should be permanent, so that they allow well thought through plans for higher densities. This is as much about trying to give the economy a short term boost, and for the reason Stuart gives, will probably not have a positive long term effect.

[Wing]

We wouldn't want the houses in our neighbourhood to end up like those in Southall.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rants.html

[Eagle]

As I earlier stated LBC do not check on peoples gardens. You can build an extension confident it will never be queried.
I know 3 examples in a row.

[Tim Lund]

As I earlier stated LBC do not check on peoples gardens. You can build an extension confident it will never be queried.
I know 3 examples in a row.

LBC? London Borough of Croydon?

[JRobinson]

presumably Lewisham Borough Council.

Eagle - if you know of illegal extensions, you should report them.

[JRobinson]

This post will probably stir up a right hornets nest, but we don't have a housing shortage.

There are not famillies out on the street with nowhere to live.

yes there may be people on housing lists, living in B&Bs or hostels or hotels, or in their parents spare room.
all that means is that we have too many holiday rooms available, not filled with tourists - convert these into proper housing.
The govt. should be concentrating on converting old empty houses, or unused office blocks into housing. much better than building new.
a single parent with two children does not need a three bedroom house. This single parent family could live in a spare rooms at her parents house - no longer homeless.
replicate this across the country, reduces the homeless figure hugely.

[Tim Lund]

This post will probably stir up a right hornets nest, but we don't have a housing shortage.

Maybe a waspish comment or two, but hornets are out.

There are not famillies out on the street with nowhere to live.

I suspect Shelter could find some, but there is a lot of sofa surfing, and living in over crowded rooms.

yes there may be people on housing lists, living in B&Bs or hostels or hotels, or in their parents spare room.
all that means is that we have too many holiday rooms available, not filled with tourists - convert these into proper housing.
The govt. should be concentrating on converting old empty houses, or unused office blocks into housing. much better than building new.

This is the nub of the matter - should the state be able to tell people what to do with their property? In general I'd say it shouldn't, and I'm sure the local civic societies would agree, although people living in social housing do not have equivalent property rights to where they live, and can be told to move out when they no longer need all the space they have. But in our mixed economy, in which much of the housing stock is not 'socialised', it is reasonable to say we have a housing shortage, which also expresses itself in inflated property values.