Proposed changes to permitted development?

Is this what you heard?

Yes, I found this:

Cheers Richard

This is a suggestion that planning type decisions for domestic extensions/modifications might be made by a committee formed from your neighbours rather that solely by the planners themselves.

Note that this is not the same as permitted development rights which are a set of developments that can be carried out with NO planning permission and are allowed by law nationwide rather than the whims of the mood of the local planning committee at the time of application.

Sounds like another govt announcement/leak that at first sight sound interestingly progressive but has yet to be thought through and given a touch of reality.

Bob

Indeed.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember geraldthehamster saying something like:

This 'neighbourhoods' idea sounds like the kind of thing that could take on a life of its own, with busybodies electing themselves onto 'neighbourhood' committees and the little local cliques running things to suit themselves, and go hang what the individual wants to do if it offends the sensibilities of one of the clique - think radio ham, etc. Could end up being the worst kind of thing in some areas. I'm reminded of the American Homeowner Association nonsense in some ways.

It'll be the same NIMBYs and busybodies who sit on my Parish Council and routinely object to most planning applications, only to see them passed by the real local authority. From the BBC story:

"Groups of householders will be allowed to apply to be recognised as "neighbourhoods", covering a group of streets or larger areas ... There would be a presumption that local authorities will approve the status ... Neighbourhoods could then prepare "neighbourhood plans" which would be put to referendums. "

Looked at another way, if enough local landowners and vested interests can get together and call themselves a "neighbourhood", they can legtimise their own activities while telling the rest of us what we can, or can't do. Personally I'd rather vote for governments and councils to make these kinds of decisions.

More evidence (if any were needed) that the current government (which nobody voted for) lives on another planet.

Cheers Richard

well that's fine then, because it IS their backyards.

And its up to the people who want to develop to settle with their neighbours.

WE had a development to which we did not object BUT we wanted the trees that screened it left in place. They were junked and not replaced.

Despite an order on the property for them to be.

Ok a few saplings have been replanted, but they won't replace mature trees...fr 40 years.

I cant wait for applications to be rejected purely on the grounds that 'we don't want it'

That's proper local democracy.

No thats the way it is NOW.

with local landowners on all the parish and borough planning committees trying to make a fortune on development. And they twist the rules to make sure it happens.

This is better, because if it is enough justification that people simply object en masse, it strips the planning committees of the power to ram things through.

Central Govt. guidelines to 'build more homes' result in totally inappropriate development on green field sites, purely to make money.

For the Landowner.

Everyone else picks up the tab in terms of lack of schools, jobs, infrastructure , roads and even power etc.

The fact is they dont. They bow to money and pressure and central govt. Which if its Laber, forces populations from the towns into teh shires simply it seems to affect the voting patterns.

Not to local opinion.

More evidence that pickles knows the score frankly.

The other thing that makes planning a bit farcical at the moment is that there are few sanctions if someone breaks the rules. In our old village years ago someone had PP for a 4-bed house, built it taller and with

Builder then sells, and in doing so it's not his responsibility any more. Buyer gets the house cheaper and just applies for retrospective, gets it with minor adjustments needed. Turns out the builder had previous in this regard.

Seems to me the rules ought to be that the original transgressor should stay responsible.

No, that's the problem. The new notion seems to assume that people will work together and do things "en masse", and that this somehow empowers the ordinary man and equates with democracy. It doesn't, because generally people don't; it's just the loudmouths and the people with time on their hands who will style themselves community leaders, and will band together to get the outcomes they want. Local authorities may get accused of corruption and nepotism but at least councillors have to keep looking over their shoulders at their electorate - they have to stand for election and face competition.

The cliques who will take advantage of the new system will be accountable to nobody. Local referendums on their decisions won't amount to much, as most people won't be interested or bother to vote; much as happens now with Parish Council elections. In fact, the people most likely to take advantage of the new proposal are the Parish Councillors, who are used to being elected unopposed because they're the only people self-important enough to do it.

Cheers Richard

They're elected unopposed because too few people can be arsed to do it (I was a parish councillor for a few years in our old village, so I'm aware it can be time consuming). And too many these days in villages take no part whatever in local affairs. Makes you wonder why they bother to live there.

People do band together when there's something they really don't like; it happens all the time. Problem at the moment is that you can't object to something "because we don't like it". There has to be a *planning* reason. Folks don't understand this and so are surprised when 3000 of them sign a petition saying we don't want xxx, but the council gives planning permission anyway. If there's a local referendum and people don't bother to vote or are not interested, then obviously the matter doesn't concern them very much then, does it?

- Hide quoted text -

Even if you read the minutes, it's difficult to see what our Parish Council actually does, apart from pay farmers to mow the verges, read letters and object to planning applications.

The proposals aren't about people banding together to object to things

- they're about people setting themselves up as groups to determine local planning policy, which I'd rather have done by an elected body. If they were talking about giving these powers to Parish Councils, I wouldn't be keen, but it would be preferable to having the same bunch of busybodies setting policy in an unelected unaccountable way.

How big are these localities supposed to be? If a village five miles up the road decides that it's going to allow a lot of development, that will affect traffic, road safety, road maintenance, gritting, etc., in front of my house. That's why planning policy is rightly determined at a bigger level than "a few streets".

I think the idealogues in this government dislike the state and its functions so much, that they see the very idea of power exercised by elected representatives as socialist anathema. Far better that the market can be free to buy the outcome that it wants.

Cheers Richard

You've just described how my borough council appears to operate, so I can't see the new proposals being any worse. At least the neighbourhoods might be smaller enough to encourage people to take an interest.

Matt

It depends how active they want to be. At the last PC meeting I went to here, I had a set-to with the Chairman because he didn't see it as his responsibility to contact neighbouring parishes to get some joint action regarding clearing a particular road's ice/snow. But none of that showed up in the minutes. Even with that discussion, the meeting was over in under an hour. They seem a supine bunch here.

In our last village, the agenda was much longer and there were regular items such as a report on the state of footpaths within the parish.

Do you attend your PC meetings? I'm usually the only member of the public to do so.

In message , Tim Streater writes

Rules Tim, rules.

The whole operation is governed by a set of written regulations. I bumped into this recently when I attended a PC meeting where they were going to discuss something they wanted from me.

During the discussion, I attempted to correct a misunderstanding. There was a pause, followed by the chair pointing out that, if they allowed me to speak it would change the *rules* such that they would have to allow others to speak.

In the event, I said my piece but it was not recorded in the minutes.

A way round this is to get yourself invited to attend sub-committee meetings. Your PC may have a *road safety* group who would welcome informed opinion from local residents.

On planning, our Parish has a non elected group discussing local issues. As said, they comprise Architects and incomers who are concerned about unwanted change. Nevertheless, they do alert villagers to what is proposed.

I go to the AGM only.

regards

This is the transcript from Greg Clark's speech:

The comments relating to PCs is very relevant, my current village has a very stunted and conservative view of any development or change, so this could be a real issue if these guys get the power put into their hands.

Thomas

No, I don't. I do help support a local park. I've just looked at the minutes of our most recent PC meeting. They approved their last minutes, decided where two planters would go, awarded a contract for a noticeboard to somebody they knew, objected to two planning applications and commented on some drainage works by the water company.

Cheers Richard

Does it say anything about ASHP, Air Source Heat Pumps?

NuLabour allowed GSHP under PD because of no exterior noise whereas ASHP required planning permission (in fact a) required an acoustic survey to assess rarefraction/reinforcement effects etc or b) equipment spec below some noise level which was still not decided, circa 45dB(A), a figure which very few outside units actually meet).

If ASHP now comes under "local committee" that may kill the things stone dead because of NIMBY.