OT: Shake-up for home extension rules

[Don Spumey]

I wonder whether it will simplify things?

[Andy Hall]

That depends on what you mean by "things".

In other words whether you want to do "things" or are on the receiving end of unsuitable "things"

OTOH, it is curious that the present government would be interested in implementing something that reduces the need to employ ever more civil servants.

[Broadback]

Yes the government will make things easier, like replacing your windows, do electrical work and selling your house.

[tim.....]

IMHO most people will have little problem with: "where there is little impact on neighbours", but I'm sure that there are going to be 100s of cases where the developer claims "little impact" and the neighbours don't agree.

tim

[Don Spumey]

When I said 'things' I meant not having to wait 13 weeks and paying up to a grand for some pencil pusher to give the nod (or not), for someone to build (or have built) what most sane people would consider a 'minor' extension.

Plus not having the inconvenience of some 'rissole' who happens to read the planning notice plastered on a lamp-post thinking it's a good idea to object because it might block their view of Venus ascending from twenty doors down!

Don.

[John Rumm]

If you apply the standard law of unintended consequences that seems to apply to any legislation the government touches, then chances are it will just introduce a whole new flavour of red tape to the existing.

[Andy Hall]

Oh of course....

Bureaucracy outsourcing.....

[Andy Hall]

Exactly. Then what happens?

[Andy Cap]

It will result in lots of houses looking s***e but who cares any longer in this 'anything' goes world, where considering your neighbour is a thing of the past.

If common sense eventually prevails, the decision will eventually be rescinded but not before plenty of aesthetic damage has been done.

Andy

[Andy Hall]

It then depends on the definition of 'minor'. It also depends on the opinion of neighbours who may take a different view to the would be constructor as to what is visually acceptable.

That's another matter altogether.

I certainly think that there is a case for simplifying and cost reducing planning procedures. However, I do think that the views of interested parties (i.e. neighbours) should be taken into account and that there should be a way for that to happen even if it is made simpler and cheaper so to do.

[tim.....]

A house can be made to look s**te with an unapproved extension that meets the current 'permitted' rules. What's the difference?

I personally can't see anything wrong with this in principle, other then the (already mentioned) problem of defining "little impact". Unless one is in a conservation area ISTM that it is entirely up to the owner if they want to make their house look s**te, they can already do this in many ways that don't require PP (such as by painting it a inappropriate colour).

tim

[Andy Cap]

This sentiment illustrates my point exactly. A society where anything goes. Great !

There's a difference between something cosmetic and something structural. That old stick-on stone in the middle of a terrace was a good look I thought. I happen to believe that there are more important things in life than pleasing yourself, but I realise I'm now left in a tiny minority.

Andy

[Tony Bryer]

Planning officers are LA employees not civil servants, and AIUI LAs are finding it hard to find enough suitable people (one London planning authority is allegedly mainly staffed by Australians). Intelligent planning officers (they do exist) will tell you that they didn't study for three years to end up working through stacks of extension plans. And there's probably a certain amount of bad will created when neighbours get consultation letters about an application that is almost bound to be approved (because it meets LA guidelines) and are then left feeling let down or angry when they protest and it is then approved.

Some LAs have in the past (and perhaps now) been disastrously inefficient when dealing with householder applications: in my plan drawing days in the late 1980s LB Ealing could take 6 months or more to determine an application. I could say a lot of unkind things about my local planners but when it comes to non-contentious domestic applications they approve them within 4-5 weeks, but even then many probably don't really need an application.

[dg]

Any clues as to when this may come into force?

I currently have an application for a client which has little impact, not objections, but the planner has refused it because he does not like the design.

I wonder if I wait a while, it may sail through under the new guidelines

dg

[Don Spumey]

AFAIK it's a white-paper reading in 'that place' on Monday.....so it's anyone's guess :-(

Don.

[Ed Sirett]

Although perhaps untypical, in London there are many 'minor' structures which are put up without permission (including in conservation areas). in the more 'bustling' and 'vibrant' areas there seems to be no effective enforcement either by negligence, public apathy, public ignorance, insufficient resources or design I can't say.

[Andy Cap]

And do you think this architectural shanty town look, is a good or bad thing ?

Andy

[Huge]

Huh? Did someone start a hair-splitting contest without telling me?

[Huge]

As opposed to a society where you tell people how to live their lives?

I'll take "anything goes", thanks.

[Huge]

I suggest you move to "Celebration" and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.