Housing and development policies . AIBU to be thoroughly shocked ?

Opens up the likelihood of environmental damage and the loss of significant history if there are no archaeological controls. Loss of employment, too, for those people who work in those fields. Another great stride forward for the economy, I don't think!

When and how quickly can we get these clowns out of the House of Commons? They are ruining our beautiful country and none appears to care.

Adding extensions without permission - seems odd, lumped with the rest of the proposed changes.

Err...right...so it's OK to build expensive housing on fields (without provision for "affordable housing"), but not install solar panels?

Wake me up when the world has turned the right way round again!

20 years ago I was surrounded by arable farmland. Now the fields are covered with new housing estates, there's not enough doctor/dentist surgeries or schools to cater for the estates, but more worryingly, as farmland is being built on, where is our food - crops and livestock going to come from to feed all these people?

Maybe I'm being simplistic but it's something I can't work out...

This all sounds awful.

It’s awful but that’s the way it’s always been done, is the Labour Party proposing to take over land and build more social housing

No they are not, because they know they would not be able to find the money to do it.

I think they'll find the money, Katie59.

They'll probably find the land, too, without doing away with planning regulations...

Planning regulations need a thorough root and branch sort-out anyway. At the moment, they benefit landowners, speculators, landlords and NIMBYs and are failing to provide the housing people need. The state needs to take more control, not leave housing to the "market".

MaizieD

I think they'll find the money, Katie59.

They'll probably find the land, too, without doing away with planning regulations...

Finding the land is easy, despite restrictions they are building on prime farmland here and now.

growstuff

Planning regulations need a thorough root and branch sort-out anyway. At the moment, they benefit landowners, speculators, landlords and NIMBYs and are failing to provide the housing people need. The state needs to take more control, not leave housing to the "market".

Agreed

Norah

Adding extensions without permission - seems odd, lumped with the rest of the proposed changes.

You can certainly add a conservatory at the rear without planning, other “permitted development” has to be approved and have building regulations
You can build structures in your garden but not residential extensions

This corrupt government is in hock to its party donors amongst them the volume housebuilders.

Katie59

Norah

Adding extensions without permission - seems odd, lumped with the rest of the proposed changes.

You can certainly add a conservatory at the rear without planning, other “permitted development” has to be approved and have building regulations
You can build structures in your garden but not residential extensions

I found private extensions quite odd in the article. That's all.

Katie59

MaizieD

I think they'll find the money, Katie59.

They'll probably find the land, too, without doing away with planning regulations...

Finding the land is easy, despite restrictions they are building on prime farmland here and now.

I was thinking of more appropriate sites than prime farmland. I'm sure that there's still a lot of brownfield sites waiting to be developed.

But it's also important that Labour encourages and supports investment in all parts of the country. It's no use covering the southeast with housing it has to be spread across the regions, so they need to invest in growth and development in the regions.

We have plenty of space in the NE...

And what about the proposal to allow no fault evictions ? Benefitting the landlords of course.

I agree totally Maizie.

The uneven distribution of jobs, wealth and infrastructure is contributing to the shortage of housing in parts of the country. It's all part of the same agenda. However, please don't forget that parts of London have some of the poorest boroughs in the country.

Katie59

Norah

Adding extensions without permission - seems odd, lumped with the rest of the proposed changes.

You can certainly add a conservatory at the rear without planning, other “permitted development” has to be approved and have building regulations
You can build structures in your garden but not residential extensions

You're a bit out-of-date. Planning laws for residential extensions have already been relaxed. Planning permission is not the same as building regulations.

Brownfield sites are generally more expensive to develop and often don't provide enough land for the scale of development which is needed to be profitable.

I don't have a problem with new developments, so long as they are sensitive to the environment and requirements to provide infrastructure and affordable housing (which should be genuinely affordable) are actually enforced - currently they're not. There should also be more council building with properties to rent.

I actually prefer buildings (villages, towns and cities) to much of our countryside. IMO they and the communities they create are what make a country.

Just ask why there about a million more extant planning permissions for new homes than the homes which have been built.

Who benefits from sitting on theses planning permissions?

Are they by any chance donating megabucks to the Conservative Party?

Growstuff
Householders need to take care you can’t do exactly what you want

Small single-story extensions often do not require full planning permission and can be built within permitted development rights. However, this is only providing all the relevant planning and design criteria are met and there are no constraints which limit or remove your permitted development rights.

Large extensions or double-story extensions usually require full planning permission which may be secured through a householder planning application. Flats and maisonettes do not benefit from permitted development rights so in order to extend planning permission is always required.

Some extensions also require prior approval even though they are considered permitted development. In these cases, work must not start until the local planning authority approves the application for prior approval.

growstuff

Katie59

Norah

Adding extensions without permission - seems odd, lumped with the rest of the proposed changes.

You can certainly add a conservatory at the rear without planning, other “permitted development” has to be approved and have building regulations
You can build structures in your garden but not residential extensions

You're a bit out-of-date. Planning laws for residential extensions have already been relaxed. Planning permission is not the same as building regulations.

I was questioning this from the article ministers have drawn up plans to allow people to add extensions without permission

I thought our extension was added without permission (with bldg regs).

Regardless, whatever is easier for individuals is good.

varian

Just ask why there about a million more extant planning permissions for new homes than the homes which have been built.

Who benefits from sitting on theses planning permissions?

Are they by any chance donating megabucks to the Conservative Party?

There are probably 10,000 homes just in this district on hold because the planning conditions cannot be met. This is provision of road improvements, schools, medical facilities, social housing and environmental improvements. If the finance does not add up the the project can’t go ahead, the cost of the infrastructure has to be added to the house price which makes them too expensive.