Housing and development policies . AIBU to be thoroughly shocked ?

growstuff Thu 13-Oct-22 12:11:53

Of course they do but when the schools are over subscribed, the Dr's unable to give appointments (not even telephone ones), flooding regularly, the sewage being pumped into the sea because the system can't cope, gridlock on the roads, the sewers still being from the Victorian Age and not designed for such large numbers of housing and plenty of brown fields available for redeveloping, the Government obviously aren't looking at the bigger picture.

The real shocker here for me is the total lack of commitment to affordable housing which even as it has stood for some years, is lamentably inadequate, hence our massive homeless problem; families living in B&Bs, poor outcomes for children fuelling societal instability and inequality etc. As someone who used to work as a volunteer for a homelessness charity, I have seen the consequences of successive governments lack of interest in righting this great wrong. Fuel has been added to the fire by mass and uncontrolled immigration. It is about time that ministers and the wealthy in their luxurious homes, put an end to this disgraceful state of affairs, build the homes we do desperately need and stop shaming this country of ours which they dare to call ‘great’.

Katie59

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.

Yet, here are the Tories finding money for tax cuts.

icanhandthemback

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".

The state does have ultimate control. In our area we have often successfully fought off planning applications which are totally unsuitable for the environment, infrastructure and the protection of the green belt and the developer just goes through the appeals until the Government Inspector is involved. Hey presto, the developer gets exactly what he wants.

The state needs to look at the bigger picture, which might sometimes involve upsetting locals.

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".

The state does have ultimate control. In our area we have often successfully fought off planning applications which are totally unsuitable for the environment, infrastructure and the protection of the green belt and the developer just goes through the appeals until the Government Inspector is involved. Hey presto, the developer gets exactly what he wants.

The whole idea of dropping any restrictions for extensions is frightening - can you just imagine what some will be doing to cut corners for profit? Building regulations and building inspectors are there for a purpose, and are needed - I worked for a local authority planning department years ago, and some of the stunts pulled by builders both amateur and 'professional' were alarming, not to mention dangerous. Even the big building companies need to be closely watched; there was a report recently of joists resting on only plasterboard, on a new housing development. Lifting restrictions is madness.

“Labour should compulsorily purchase land for housing in places where employees need homes, not on the outskirts of large cities which involves long commutes, fuel costs, pollution, etc.”

Agreed.

Oh but there is a Green Belt that some say is sacred

What can you expect from a Tory Party funded by big housebuilders and other fat cats? We need a policy to build many more Council houses where people need them. The same goes for houses for sale. Too many houses are built on green field sites despite the objections of local people because they provide more profit than brown field sites. Labour should compulsorily purchase land for housing in places where employees need homes, not on the outskirts of large cities which involves long commutes, fuel costs, pollution, etc.

varian

During the planning process negotiations between the developer and council take place
.
The granting of planning permission hugely inflates the value of the site and it is therefore reasonable that the developer makes a community contribution commensurate with this windfall in the shape of improvements to infrastructure or community facilities and the provision of affordable homes

If the deal does not stack up the developer can always walk away.

“If the deal does not stack up the developer can always walk away.”

Not usually, he has already invested often millions and just sits on it until a different plan becomes financially viable. Maybe he can afford the interest on that investment, maybe he sells the rights to someone else

During the planning process negotiations between the developer and council take place
.
The granting of planning permission hugely inflates the value of the site and it is therefore reasonable that the developer makes a community contribution commensurate with this windfall in the shape of improvements to infrastructure or community facilities and the provision of affordable homes

If the deal does not stack up the developer can always walk away.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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...

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.

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

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

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

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.