new planning laws -- how it will affect you

© The Daily Mail

Updated  Government plans to ease planning rules in England for three years have been amended to give neighbours the right to be consulted on building work.

From the Meeting of Nottingham City Council 10^th September 2012 

Temporary relaxation of planning regulations

Councillor Edwards asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation:

Would the Portfolio Holder care to comment on the Conservative and Lib Dem Government’s announcement of a temporary relaxation of planning regulations.

Councillor Urquhart replied as follows:

Thank you, Lord Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Edwards for your question.

I’m very pleased to comment, though not pleased overall by the proposals that I have so far heard. It really, to me, shows grave economic illiteracy for the Tory/Lib Dem Coalition to claim that building extensions will bring us out of recession. The conservatory party clearly believes that the only thing stopping people putting up that extension, employing a local builder, is planning permission, not money, not worry about job security or financial security, not worry about their future pension, or their children’s university fees. And they clearly haven’t talked to people living in densely packed urban environments, where planning controls are crucial to enable development to be reasonable, rather than excessive, and where family homes and open space needs preserving. But, of course, if your nearest neighbour is the game keeper somewhere else on the estate, then perhaps those concerns don’t matter so much.

So a package of measures is proposed to increase permitted development rights i.e. development for which planning permission is not required for homes and business premises for a period of up to 3 years. Apparently a full consultation document is expected next week, but it is anticipated that these changes will go ahead and would allow the length of a single storey rear extension on a detached house to be 8 metres, that’s double the current length, on a terraced or semi detached house it will be 6 metres, again, double the current permitted development right. Shops are to be allowed to extend by up to 100 square metres and industrial units by 200 square metres. Some of these proposals relate to the lower end of the development spectrum, but there is potential for such developments to have significant implications for neighbouring premises and residents, and those permissions will be taken out of the Council’s control. So your neighbour, our neighbour, anyone in this Chamber’s neighbour could decide to extend their house with an 8 metre building, and local citizens would have no route to make their views known.

“ I have some serious concerns about the possible impact that this could have on our City in terms of loss of family homes, loss of outside space, local neighbour disputes, and change in local environments. “

If we simply look at the latest weekly list of planning applications, I’ve got it here. We all get it in our emails or on paper regularly. Shall we have a look? In Leen Valley someone wants to convert a chalet bungalow to be a two storey house with a two storey front extension, significant change in character for that property, so presumably we’re all happy with that kind of thing going ahead with no planning permission. In the Dales ward someone wants to put up a conservatory to the rear of their property, that’s alright then, our economy is saved. In my own ward, in Sherwood, somebody wants to install roof lights at the front, the side and the rear of a building, all of those neighbours who would then potentially be overlooked, how would they be feeling if there’s no notification, no planning permission needed for those works.

Given that these changes to planning regulations are supposed to promote economic and housing growth, the benefit of extending permitted development rights as is being suggested is questionable, and has the potential to harm more individuals than would benefit from such a relaxation of those rights. So, potentially, instead of creating an economic boom in local builders, it could be local lawyers who would benefit, with any wider economic impact being small, and the neighbourhood impact huge.

Relaxing rules on extensions to commercial premises may, in some certain locations, be helpful to growth, however, and there is a need to look at how to introduce flexibility, but there is not a need for a chaotic system where uncertainty about development is created. We in Nottingham, of course, want development to take place and we know that planning decisions in the southern end of our City Centre, for example, are crucial. Do we really want a chaotic system where anything goes which could risk undermining our City Centre and the retail offer that it presents? The uncertainty of planning without rules could easily stifle investment, rather than stimulate it.

In terms of affordable housing too, removing the requirement for affordable housing , because that may make development commercially unviable cannot be the only yardstick. If affordable housing is critical in certain locations, without it the community could become unsustainable then, of course, affordable housing has to be part of the development in that community. If they’re ‘a nice to have’, but in a location where affordable homes do exist in reasonable numbers, then perhaps it could be right to remove slavish requirements. Many planning authorities, including our own, are already being very flexible with requirements in order to get development moving anyway, so we did not need to have a government announcement to enable our planners to take a pragmatic view. What we do need is real investment.

Putting poorly performing planning departments into special measures is a headline grabbing distraction, it would be appropriate in, maybe, one or two exceptionally dysfunctional authorities. The real issue regarding the lack of delivery of new developments is less about the effectiveness of planning departments and more about a slump in demand from the development industry and consumers. In general, planning departments run well, they’re not a barrier to growth; they’re stimulating development to meet need in a sustainable way and to bring associated economic development, that’s what they’re about. Let’s not forget the wider point made by the Tory led Local Government Association (LGA), who have reminded us that there are, of course, already 400,000 prospective homes that have planning permission, that need finance in order to get those developments going.

Additionally, Sir Merrick Cockell, not someone with whom I usually have a great deal of affinity, but he has said “to get Britain building again we need to address the lack of liquidity in the finance market and tackle the shortage of mortgages for struggling first time buyers”. And, of course, locally and elsewhere, we have many school improvements, for example; these are ready to go, it’s not the planning permission that’s the problem, it’s the money and the financial investment that’s needed to achieve the buildings.

So, there might be some aspects of the announcements that could be more welcome. Apparently there’s £10 billion to underwrite house construction, £300 million to provide 15,000 affordable homes and bring back empty homes into use, and potentially, £280 million to extend the First Buy Scheme. So, all of those, if they turn out in the way that they appear, could be applauded, a potential contribution to getting more homes built and purchased. But, of course, we’ve yet to seen any detail.

In the majority of cases, planning authorities and their planning officers, are already working extremely hard to make things happen, to provide sustainable development, and to move towards stimulating economic growth.

The majority of these announcements, I fear, risk an abandonment of reasonable planning controls with no evidence that this will have the economic impact that has been claimed. These changes could have a lasting and negative impact upon or communities, but are the conservatories going to pull us out of recession, I don’t think so, no more than the Conservatives, who see economic policies have plunged us even deeper into the double dip, double glazing isn’t going to be the way out.