Will relaxing planning rules benefit UK? (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Will relaxing planning rules benefit UK?
11:31am Monday 10th September 2012 in Letters By Readers' letters
THE ink has only recently dried on the National Planning Policy guidelines. We are now being informed by the Government that the planning regulations are to be changed in order to stimulate growth in the construction sector.
So far as the relaxation of the rules as they affect extensions to property are concerned, the suggested bureaucratic delays associated with the existing arrangements are simply untrue for the majority of applications.
Both City of York and parish councils process applications quickly; significant delays normally only occur when there are planning issues relating to massing of buildings and/or detrimental effects on neighbouring properties.
It seems that the Government’s ideas about decentralising decision making and the promotion of Localism are heading the same way as those about the “Big Society”.
David Randon, Chairman, Wheldrake Parish Council, Blue Slates Close, Wheldrake, York.
• The temporary relaxation of planning permission with the intent to speed up building of housing extensions and new builds might be good idea.
The improvement in the availability of finance will also help.
However, the most difficult permission needed before any project large or small can begin, will certainly be permission from neighbours and NIMBYS.
Oh, and of course the “human rights” aspects for all concerned. Keep all things “crossable” crossed.
J Beisly, Osprey Close, York.
• I AM delighted to hear the Prime Minister has announced plans to boost house-building which will significantly boost economic growth and create much needed employment.
This follows hotly in the tracks of the York Labour group’s refusal to discuss my group’s affordable housing motion and further insult this week by brushing off my colleagues on the local development working group who again tried to broach the subject.
Labour has so far remained blinkered to pleas from developers. Their policies have long proved to be not only a hindrance but a complete obstacle to addressing housing needs.
It is hoped that the Government announcement will assist in forcing their hand into some action by removing restrictions on house builders to “help unlock homes currently stalled due to sites being commercially unviable”.
This is particularly relevant in York where developers continue to be held to unreasonable demands in difficult economic circumstances.
In a further wake up call to the Labour-controlled council, the Government has indicated it will put pressure on poor performing planning authorities by putting them into “special measures”.
Coun Paul Doughty, Conservative, Strensall ward.
• THE refusal of the ruling Labour group to debate a Conservative proposal for a new affordable housing policy at the latest local development framework (LDF) meeting was disgraceful. It was the Labour group who specifically deferred that motion from a full council meeting to the LDF group.
To then cancel two LDF meetings and fail to include it on the agenda when a meeting is finally held shows that the politburo has no intention of allowing free debate on the initiatives of other political groups.
The excuse by Coun Merrett that not enough time had been allowed for officers to carry out investigations is ridiculous.
This issue has supposed to have been under continuous monitoring and “investigation” for years, with report after report being published by the army of housing-cum-planning officials employed by the council at taxpayers’ expense.
What we need is less people writing reports and more people laying bricks. And we need it now.
Matthew Laverack, Lord Mayor’s Walk.
York.
Comments(18)
YSTClinguist
says...
12:44pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Where the government is attempting to hammer a wedge in society between the 'haves' and 'have nots', this means middle-class-and-abo
ve home owners facing the threat of negative equity with some spare money will be made happy, and the government can attract/keep their votes for the next election?
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
1:15pm Mon 10 Sep 12
YSTClinguist wrote:This initiative is to stimulate growth in the economy; mainly by forcing councils (like York) to stop stifling development with their unworkable affordable housing policies and their intransigence with the negotiation process.
So, permission won't be needed for extensions less than 30ft, to 'encourage' small extensions and conservatories, loft conversions, etc. Where the government is attempting to hammer a wedge in society between the 'haves' and 'have nots', this means middle-class-and-abo ve home owners facing the threat of negative equity with some spare money will be made happy, and the government can attract/keep their votes for the next election?
It's nothing to do with 'vote-catching'.
Matt_S
says...
1:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12
But there should also be a tax deterrent on landlords who buy-to-let, as well as some form of wealth/mansion tax. At the same time, those who build-to-let, or do major refurbishment on improving existing properties should be incentivised.
If the new houses that get built are simply snapped up by people wanting to let them, then rents will not come down as much as they need to.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
2:28pm Mon 10 Sep 12
The main issues are the shortage of housing, and the lack of growth in the economy, not high rents. Government policy should initially address the main issues, to increase housebuilding. If rents are too high, the increase of supply should eventually bring these down. You cannot legislate against the private rental sector, as the investment by this sector is required for growing the economy.
Don't hold your breath though, as I do not think the government have gone far enough. Councils, like York, will continue to manipulate the negotiation system and hold back development. Target reduction (of affordable housing) is the solution, not trying to limit developers to hypothetical profit levels. The current proposals are not providing incentives. I predict that any success will be limited, and more will need to be done. There is no quick fix, and it will take up to five years to get volumes to grow in sufficient numbers - mark my word !
capt spaulding
says...
3:40pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Not so the council or their plants writing on this forum.
They still dont get it do they.
They have wrecked the housing industry in york and seem hell bent on continuing to do so.
Matt_S
says...
3:44pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:Well, high rents clearly are an issue.
Matt_S,
The main issues are the shortage of housing, and the lack of growth in the economy, not high rents. Government policy should initially address the main issues, to increase housebuilding. If rents are too high, the increase of supply should eventually bring these down. You cannot legislate against the private rental sector, as the investment by this sector is required for growing the economy.
Don't hold your breath though, as I do not think the government have gone far enough. Councils, like York, will continue to manipulate the negotiation system and hold back development. Target reduction (of affordable housing) is the solution, not trying to limit developers to hypothetical profit levels. The current proposals are not providing incentives. I predict that any success will be limited, and more will need to be done. There is no quick fix, and it will take up to five years to get volumes to grow in sufficient numbers - mark my word !
But as you say, the increase of supply should bring these down.
An increase in supply is more likely to bring down the cost of housing if new properties can only be bought by people who don't yet own a property, since mortgages are usually much less than rents. And with less demand for renting, landlords/estate agents would have to reduce their prices.
Zetkin
says...
4:29pm Mon 10 Sep 12
a) control the rents which landlords may charge, and;
b) to institute a massive programme of building to provide the social housing that this country needs after decades of privatisation by both Labour and Tory parties.
As Labour, Tory, and Liberal parties are all committed to helping big business use the recession to drive up their share of the country's wealth at the expense of the rest of us, I shan't be holding my breath.
Will.I.Aint
says...
4:52pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Jezreel
says...
4:57pm Mon 10 Sep 12
What you won't hear from some of the others who post here is that they are not disinterested parties in this debate. The Black Fingernail for instance omits to mention that he is an architect and developer and a large scale landlord.
Don't be taken in. Their "concern" that York gets it development plans right must be taken with a Himalayan sized pinch of salt.
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
5:07pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Jezreel wrote:Once again you are completely wrong !
Zetkin is spot on. What you won't hear from some of the others who post here is that they are not disinterested parties in this debate. The Black Fingernail for instance omits to mention that he is an architect and developer and a large scale landlord. Don't be taken in. Their "concern" that York gets it development plans right must be taken with a Himalayan sized pinch of salt.
I am not an architect.
I did work for developers until my workload dried up in 2008.
I am not a 'large scale landlord.
I am not Matthew Laverack.
York have completely screwed up their 'development plans'. They are incompetent idiots, and the officers and councillors responsible for this massive failure are being paid a fortune to cause massive damage to York and it's economy - IT IS A SCANDAL !
capt spaulding
says...
5:27pm Mon 10 Sep 12
Why ? What has he ever done to encourage your obvious loathing ?.
The Great Buda
says...
10:38am Tue 11 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
10:58am Tue 11 Sep 12
The Great Buda wrote:Absolutely not.
Why has Scarlet Pimpernel/Capt Sapulding got two user accounts?
How many has James Alexander got ?
E=MC^2
says...
11:21am Tue 11 Sep 12
Scarlet Pimpernel
says...
12:22pm Tue 11 Sep 12
E=MC^2 wrote:Conservatories add very little value to a property, and certainly not as much as they cost. Similarly, extensions don't always add as much as they cost to a property's value. This initiative will however be helpful to many of the immigrant population who have larger family groups, with many generations sharing the family home.
Nah wont help the Uk economy just the equity which middleclass housowners have in their properties by being able to build large obscene conservatories. Hencefotth the Tories will be known as.... the Conservatory Party !
TheTruthHurts
says...
5:26pm Tue 11 Sep 12
capt spaulding wrote:Jilted Lover!
It is very obvious to all who read these columns that jezreel at any and every opportunity accuses, criticises and generally hurls insults in the direction of Matthew Laverack.
Why ? What has he ever done to encourage your obvious loathing ?.
The Great Buda
says...
10:23am Wed 12 Sep 12
This is the real reason the housing market has fallen - no one can afford to buy. Houses are over-priced. Period.
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/money/2012/sep
/12/rental-market-lo
ndon-south-east-over
heating
Scarlet Pimpernel says...
12:31pm Mon 10 Sep 12
There were only ten schemes requiring negotiation during the last ten years, because the 50% target was in force for nearly seven of those years and there were only 13 planning applications made during that time which were subject to the AH target. Out of these, only 4 schemes agreed to 50% AH; two were not by private developers, and only 6 AH homes resulted from the private schemes. The other 9 schemes required negotiation, and 6 of these schemes have not been built, Of the 3 schemes that have been built, only 5 AH were provided by private developers. The reason there have been so few negotiations, is because there have been so few applications, owing to the unworkable targets.