insane changes to planning law

[marymck]

If true, then today's news of the government's plans to change permitted development rights is completely insane. It just goes to prove (if any still doubted it) how out of touch with real life politicians of all parties are.

The system exists to protect neighbours and neighbourhoods.

This news will blight many people's home lives and destroy the value of their properties.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[JulietP]

Conversely, I think this move is more "in touch with real life" than most Government decisions. In real life we desperately need lots more housing. "Real people" need homes they can afford to buy and rent.

It's rational for people who already own homes to be incentivised to oppose new developments - the more acute the housing shortage, the more inflated the price of existing housing stock. But if we care at all as a society about younger generations being able to afford to put a roof over their heads, then we should support anything that will increase housebuilding - obviously as long as those are placed and designed appropriately and of suitable standard.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Not everyone can afford to live in detached houses with lots of space between them and their neighbours. As politicians can. Most people - even those in detached houses - live cheek by jowl with their neighbours. Just think of the implications of an unregulated eight metre extension blocking your light and outlook, or of windows affording a close view into your bedroom, or that of your elderly or vulnerable relatives, or those of children. That is what will happen under these changes. Planning rules exist to protect neighbours and neighbourhoods.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Not everyone can afford to live in detached houses with lots of space between them and their neighbours. As politicians can. Most people - even those in detached houses - live cheek by jowl with their neighbours. Just think of the implications of an unregulated eight metre extension blocking your light and outlook, or of windows affording a close view into your bedroom, or that of your elderly or vulnerable relatives, or those of children. That is what will happen under these changes. Planning rules exist to protect neighbours and neighbourhoods.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

And where should the homeless and over crowded live? Any thought for them? Will they ever see the light of day as they bed down in sheds? Ship them off to Ellis Island?

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[marymck]

really Tim I do urge you to read my comments, which are about extensions. I have not commented on new homes. You have fallen into the government's trap of missing this plan because they have buried it in the new homes planning proposals.

Nor do I intend to comment on immigration. I am commenting on unrestricted extensions to existing properties, which BTW will result in fewer affordable homes (unless you count those of the neighbours whose properties will have been diminished).

Am I to assume you are happy to have your child's bedroom overlooked? Because that will be the result of these plans for many.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dickp]

Good.

Why an earth is the state involved in your decision about whether you put a loft extension, or a conservatory, in your own house? Do they own it? No. Do you? Yes. Does the state have to live with the consequences if a homeowner foolishly annoys their neighbours by doing something stupid? No. Do homeowners? Yes.

Sounds like a perfectly valid rebalancing of the rights of property owners against the rights of town hall bureaucrats and neighbourhood busybodies.

[marymck]

No Dick the state are planning to take away the neighbour's protection. Please try to imagine yourself or someone you care about put in the position I have described to Tim. This will happen to many people as a result of this change and they will not be able to stop it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dickp]

Against what? There is no legal right to light, and most of us who live in flats are already overlooked.

The current planning system isn't exactly great at ensuring we live in a pleasant environment, is it?

[marymck]

Oh that's all right then Dick? Peeking tom's charter? Bring it on hey?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dickp]

So you think there will be an explosion in people building lookout towers to stare into neighbours bedrooms, do you?

Or perhaps exactly nothing will change, and 99.9% of alterations will take place exactly as before. Minus the expense and delay of planning permission.

[marymck]

If you saw some of the issues that worried neighbours come to the syd soc planning sub committee to ask for help about I don't think you'd be so dismissive. Lots of the plans have no care or concern for the impact on their neighbours. The current system is far from perfect and enforcement is a farce, but to take away all protection from the vulnerable is IMO cruel.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dickp]

No, I would. I fundamentally do not believe in the right of others to interfere with the rights of property owners, so long as actual harm is not being caused.

Yes, the results may occasionally be messy around the edges, but private property is private property. If you don't own it, you don't have a say. Period.

[marymck]

Well obviously no getting through there then. I will give up responding to dickp - no point, his mind is firmly shut. It saddens me that the State is so much on the side of people like him.

[dickp]

Parting shot. The state is currently on your side. It (may) turn to my side. Or, more specificially, return to the side of the planning regime for most of the capital's history.

There is no "right" scheme, there is only different. If I have a closed mind, then so do you.

Were you expecting a cosy consensus, or a debate?

[marymck]

I was actually hoping for an informed debate. But you've nothing to be concerned about, the State's new proposals are going to do exactly what you want.

Now I really will stop responding.

[dickp]

My father's idea of parent-son bonding was to take me to planning meetings.

He was involved in a 15 year battle with the planners, and I lived every twist and turn of it. I shot and edited a planning permission video for the parish council, aged 10.

I AM informed. I just have a different opinion of the desired system, based on my own experiences.

I will stop posting too. I have work to do.

[Eagle]

Now Now folks. You must be open minded like my goodself. Never rush to judgement.

This is a very difficult subject.

My parents house in Forest Hill was one of 5 in a terrace. They applied in the 70's to put in a small conservatory and was turned down , they said because it would be over all the pipes.

Since then 3 of the other houses have constructed extensions , two in a very amateur way . One assumes as they are all larger than the extension my father had intended no planning permission was granted.
So one must assume LBC rarely if ever check on this.

Broadly I support tight controls but also tight policing of those controls. However as usual I have an open mind on the matter.

[Rachael]

No, I would. I fundamentally do not believe in the right of others to interfere with the rights of property owners, so long as actual harm is not being caused.

Yes, the results may occasionally be messy around the edges, but private property is private property. If you don't own it, you don't have a say. Period.

Depends on what you mean by 'actual harm'. What if your neighbours put up a structure that blocked your light, or meant that they were staring in at you all the time, or that you effectively had no privacy where you once had, in your garden or in your home? What if the value of your home was significantly reduced due to these actions? Would that count as actual harm? All these things have happened to friends of mine with illegal extensions that were given retrospective permission, although the planners agreed that they would not have given permission in the first place. So the system as it stands has serious flaws - doing away with it altogether will make a bad situation worse.

[michael]

I certainly find a number of the proposed changes to planning rules to be a serious concern, but the details really do matter in such cases.

Having some experience with the planning system I can see real reasons not to remove protections that residents have. The idea that this would be done on a temporary basis shows that the government is not doing this because it is 'the right thing to do' but because they want a short term boost to the economy. The problem I have with this is that I do not believe that a sudden surge in demand for house extensions will be good for neighbours or for consumers. It will create short term demand which will lead to quickly generated projects of reduced quality, but it is a great way to make a quick profit if you are a builder.

I can imagine that there will be a few builders who will take immediate advantage of the change of rules and will be able to extend their dwellings to their property boundaries within 9m of neighbouring rooms, and creating overbearing structures which completely block light to neighbouring houses. There are a few sites in particular in Sydenham and Forest Hill which I could imagine could be seriously impacted by such a change and leave the neighbours in virtually uninhabitable properties. This is exactly the type of development that requires planning rules.

I also suspect that the temporary suspension of such rules would not be lawful and would be challenged in the courts. It leaves homeowners with the courts as the only way to seek any form of ruling on inappropriate extensions, and that is a very expensive way to deal with neighbourly disputes. I suspect that once all the headline grabbing has died down we will find that any relaxation of rules for residential/business extensions will be fairly minimal.

[stuart]

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