Planning reforms
Discussion
This is pretty dramatic, although there isn't a huge amount of detail. One thing is for sure and that is Jenrick and Cummings are seriously dodgy characters.
Our planning system is pretty well regarded, and to deregulate at this level will require very careful consideration, not rushed through proposals just to satisfy the party donors, because once gone it will be difficult to go back and could lead to poor and uncontrolled development.
The existing system is criticised but it just needs resourcing and more incentive for housebuilders to build not landbank or slowly eke out development.
I can't see how a large proportion of voters (and Conservative led Councils) would be happy with removing opportunities for involvement in the process:
[i] "Our reforms will
democratise the planning process by putting a new emphasis on engagement at the
plan-making stage. At the same time, we will streamline the opportunity for consultation at
the planning application stage, because this adds delay to the process" [/i]
Doesn't seem more democratic to me unless the initial plan making stage will be more of a detailed masterplan level for 'growth' areas. It could backfire if local authorities designate all their land as protected?
And as for fast tracking 'beautiful buildings' - who makes the call as to what is beautiful?
Our planning system is pretty well regarded, and to deregulate at this level will require very careful consideration, not rushed through proposals just to satisfy the party donors, because once gone it will be difficult to go back and could lead to poor and uncontrolled development.
The existing system is criticised but it just needs resourcing and more incentive for housebuilders to build not landbank or slowly eke out development.
I can't see how a large proportion of voters (and Conservative led Councils) would be happy with removing opportunities for involvement in the process:
[i] "Our reforms will
democratise the planning process by putting a new emphasis on engagement at the
plan-making stage. At the same time, we will streamline the opportunity for consultation at
the planning application stage, because this adds delay to the process" [/i]
Doesn't seem more democratic to me unless the initial plan making stage will be more of a detailed masterplan level for 'growth' areas. It could backfire if local authorities designate all their land as protected?
And as for fast tracking 'beautiful buildings' - who makes the call as to what is beautiful?
Hub said:
Our planning system is pretty well regarded,
By who 
The post war years have the seen the value of the home accounted for by land rise massively
https://jamesjgleeson.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/his...
At the same time (and connected) new build homes are often poorly designed and constructed shoeboxes with postage stamps for gardens.
The UK planning system has long been overdue for fundamental reform. Whether these are the right measures will become clear in time.
IMO one of the most pressing reforms needed is the mandating of minimum space requirements for housing. See Parker Morris Standards
On a related note I'd make it mandatory to have the floor area of a property prominently displayed on estate agent/house builder marketing materials, not buried in tiny print on the floorplan.
We need more housing in this country, but it's got to be fit for purpose.
On a related note I'd make it mandatory to have the floor area of a property prominently displayed on estate agent/house builder marketing materials, not buried in tiny print on the floorplan.
We need more housing in this country, but it's got to be fit for purpose.
Nothing will change this is just hot air.
The problem is that local planning committees think they are there to decide if they want it or not rather than if it complies with the regulations and as everyone is a nimby votes come from rejecting everything.
The 106 money grab squeezes all margins to the point where it is hardly worth the effort and the average planning officer would not be there if they could hold down a job in the private sector.
The problem is that local planning committees think they are there to decide if they want it or not rather than if it complies with the regulations and as everyone is a nimby votes come from rejecting everything.
The 106 money grab squeezes all margins to the point where it is hardly worth the effort and the average planning officer would not be there if they could hold down a job in the private sector.
And I still won’t be able to build a modest , affordable, sustainable, retirement home on a small parcel of land I own between two other exiting houses in a rural AONB where I have lived and contributed to the economy for over 25 years and where my 2 children are 2 or 3 born in that village in the last 29 years.By the looks of things.
JagLover said:
Hub said:
Our planning system is pretty well regarded,
By who Mr. White said:
"Local community agreement will be at the centre of the proposals being put forward in the white paper."
Oh do f
k off, as if that's going to help. Nothing will get built in villages given the amount of nimbyism and jealousy involved.
Or... Maybe its because of lack of road capacity, infrastructure, services and jobs, that already aren't sufficient for the current population? Oh do f
k off, as if that's going to help. Nothing will get built in villages given the amount of nimbyism and jealousy involved.Or the lack of respect for existing residents that developers have.
In two weeks access to my home will be blocked off by Linden Homes for a week. The suggestion is I climb over a wall and scrabble along the verge of a trunk road to park my car half a mile away. Twice a day, with a toddler. They haven't even bothered to let me know directly.
They have damaged my boundary wall in several places and are denying it.
The permitted working hours are completely ignored.
Some other stuff that is under investigation.
Ziplobb said:
And I still won’t be able to build a modest , affordable, sustainable, retirement home on a small parcel of land I own between two other exiting houses in a rural AONB where I have lived and contributed to the economy for over 25 years and where my 2 children are 2 or 3 born in that village in the last 29 years.By the looks of things.
Quite. The locals are resistant are quite reluctant to dilute the gene pool in many cases.Seems to be a broad base of criticism for this, and a narrow little group supporting it. Probably doesn't help that Jenrick is pumping this, has been since he first got the job, and has enough history to make the suggestions of 'policy for bungs' look credible.
Looks like this will cause huge annoyance to a lot of people - planning is one of those things that tend to wind people up and there will be a lot of political fallout from this, local democracy killed in favour of ever more central control.
Did have a laugh at the "All new streets will have to be tree-lined under proposed new planning laws that will bring an end to 'identikit estates' " story I saw this morning - apart from it being obvious it will never happen (where would the tree go?), there's nothing more identikit than mandating something for all streets...
Looks like this will cause huge annoyance to a lot of people - planning is one of those things that tend to wind people up and there will be a lot of political fallout from this, local democracy killed in favour of ever more central control.
Did have a laugh at the "All new streets will have to be tree-lined under proposed new planning laws that will bring an end to 'identikit estates' " story I saw this morning - apart from it being obvious it will never happen (where would the tree go?), there's nothing more identikit than mandating something for all streets...
The fundamental problem in this country is that all land is owned, and the Tory toffs who own most of it are not about to give it up for building on.
Yet every now and then, a farmer will cave and sell.
This is a diminution of standards so that Tory-donating property developers can gouge more profit from the land available.
Yet every now and then, a farmer will cave and sell.
This is a diminution of standards so that Tory-donating property developers can gouge more profit from the land available.
Mobile Chicane said:
The fundamental problem in this country is that all land is owned, and the Tory toffs who own most of it are not about to give it up for building on.
Yet every now and then, a farmer will cave and sell.
This is a diminution of standards so that Tory-donating property developers can gouge more profit from the land available.
U wot m8?Yet every now and then, a farmer will cave and sell.
This is a diminution of standards so that Tory-donating property developers can gouge more profit from the land available.
You're not actually serious are you?
Last bit is true though...
This policy will last until the next election and then it will be changed.
No way on earth will voters want housing decided like this
Wealthy enclaves will push for councils to zone their areas as no construction areas and no one will want to buy the houses built in less wealthy areas if they can possibly avoid it.
No way on earth will voters want housing decided like this
Wealthy enclaves will push for councils to zone their areas as no construction areas and no one will want to buy the houses built in less wealthy areas if they can possibly avoid it.
Every government in living memory has said it would reform planning, and boost building.
Without exception, the grand plans have evaporated, and another sticking plaster applied - often another layer of rules and targets - that has led to a byzantine and inefficient planning system.
In general I'd welcome some serious reform - and if this is a consultation, it should involve some proper consultation to address issues that genuinely do exist with the current system.
Inevitably, vested interests that have built up around servicing the current process will be complaining loudly.
Equally, any change whatsoever to "who gets what" will upset a huge chunk of people who spend their lives monitoring the 'fairness' of other people's lives and business. Yes, some of those concerns are legitimate, but in planning as in life it's always been the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, and some people are deeply invested in policing our built environment.
Without exception, the grand plans have evaporated, and another sticking plaster applied - often another layer of rules and targets - that has led to a byzantine and inefficient planning system.
In general I'd welcome some serious reform - and if this is a consultation, it should involve some proper consultation to address issues that genuinely do exist with the current system.
Inevitably, vested interests that have built up around servicing the current process will be complaining loudly.
Equally, any change whatsoever to "who gets what" will upset a huge chunk of people who spend their lives monitoring the 'fairness' of other people's lives and business. Yes, some of those concerns are legitimate, but in planning as in life it's always been the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, and some people are deeply invested in policing our built environment.
UK planning authorities are held in many people's opinion to be one of the most corrupt systems there is.
To deregulate, although taking an amount of the decision authority away from local corrupt planners, would be a mistake as it would become a free-for-all that would ruin many parts of the UK.
If anything, planning authorities need to be much closer regulated and scrutinised on their decisions, and a darn good monitor of their personal bank accounts !
To deregulate, although taking an amount of the decision authority away from local corrupt planners, would be a mistake as it would become a free-for-all that would ruin many parts of the UK.
If anything, planning authorities need to be much closer regulated and scrutinised on their decisions, and a darn good monitor of their personal bank accounts !
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff