Are Planning Regs fit for purpose.

[chris p bacon]

Planning legislation is only as good as the Local Authority and it's wish or otherwise to enforce it.

 

<snip>

 

I get the impression someone knew someone somewhere!

 

Keith

It might look like that, but it could be that the builder was able to argue his case over the interpretation of the existing planning law. 

 

Regarding the Dormer window being refused, it may well have had nothing to do with ridge height but overlooking down into an adjascent property. When refused there would have been a specific reason given and if the applicants were adamant their application was correct then they would have won on appeal with costs. I've often found the reason for refusal is not always what the applicant tells you.    Look up the application online.

[Horsetan]

Hmmm, that looks more low quality shanty town style accommodation...... I'm presuming that's for "family" but in reality rented out or it's somewhere for the house slave to live.

That's exactly what it is. The planning permission was granted by Barnet on the basis that these outbuildings would be utility rooms only, but the developer almost immediately flouted the conditions once the buildings were completed. Barnet couldn't be bothered to enforce despite several complaints over the years.

[chris p bacon]

That's exactly what it is. The planning permission was granted by Barnet on the basis that these outbuildings would be utility rooms only, but the developer almost immediately flouted the conditions once the buildings were completed. Barnet couldn't be bothered to enforce despite several complaints over the years.

You do live in a bit of a rough area don't you Horse. 

 

Although I'm surprised you haven't one at the bottom of the garden for the kit overflow..........

[Horsetan]

You do live in a bit of a rough area don't you Horse. 

Welcome to Little Tel Aviv. You thought illegal settlements were something found on the West Bank, until you came here!

 

Although I'm surprised you haven't one at the bottom of the garden for the kit overflow..........

Er, there is a small shed available, but I have doubts about using it, especially as next door's shed was broken into last year.....

[melmerby]

It might look like that, but it could be that the builder was able to argue his case over the interpretation of the existing planning law. 

 

Regarding the Dormer window being refused, it may well have had nothing to do with ridge height but overlooking down into an adjascent property. When refused there would have been a specific reason given and if the applicants were adamant their application was correct then they would have won on appeal with costs. I've often found the reason for refusal is not always what the applicant tells you.    Look up the application online.

Interpretation doesn't come into it when the planning law states "You can not do...."

There were several things done which it said you will not get permission for.

I did look up the planning apps as I was curious as to what was going on.

I spoke to the local planning representitive on the Parish council and he agreed what was being done was not permitted and undesirable but changed his tune sometime later after the District Council decided not to persue it.

 

The argument about dormers would apply equally with this "extended bungalow"

It now effectively has three of them, two overlooking an adjacent property and the other the road and due to the height increase they are higher up.

 

I couldn't officially object to the impact of the work as I was not an immediate neighbour but the ones affected told me they objected to what was going on but wouldn't make it official as they "didn't want to upset the new neighbour"!

When they said that I just let it drop.

[chris p bacon]

I couldn't officially object to the impact of the work as I was not an immediate neighbour but the ones affected told me they objected to what was going on but wouldn't make it official as they "didn't want to upset the new neighbour"!

When they said that I just let it drop.

Now I understand. 

 

As you are not a near neighbour you cannot object as it has no bearing on you. The neighbours could,  but by not objecting created a 'de-facto' position. If they had objected then it may have been pursued for refusal, but as it was by then existing  with no objections then the planning department could lose at appeal as they had to show it was detrimental but had no evidence to prove that. By conceding to some variations then the builder/owner was showing a willingness to conform.

 

Welcome to my world.........

[w124bob]

Here's a couple of examples practically next door:

IMG_20170520_111306.jpg

So which is the railway room?

[Horsetan]

So which is the railway room?

 

Neither. They've both got people living in them.

[chris p bacon]

Neither. They've both got people living in them.

Kind of you to give your staff "accommodation"....

 

Do they sort through the kits and put them on a spreadsheet for your personal gratification....I bet you daren't look at the one with the tab "Portescaps".....

Edited May 20, 2017 by chris p bacon

[Loconuts]

Neither. They've both got people living in them.

 

Then I suggest that you give your local Social services a ring and inform them of that fact. Unless they are registered as habitable property they are breaking the law. Also it would be interesting to see what use they got planning permission for and did they put in a change of use application.

 

If they are renting out these out these buildings may be a friendly call to your local HMRC office would be in order. I would bet they are not paying tax on the rental income.

[APOLLO]

Here's a couple of examples practically next door:

 

IMG_20170520_111306.jpg

 

Fit a nice size layout in either of those (O gauge of course) !!!

 

Brit15

[Al51]

Then I suggest that you give your local Social services a ring and inform them of that fact. Unless they are registered as habitable property they are breaking the law. Also it would be interesting to see what use they got planning permission for and did they put in a change of use application.

 

If they are renting out these out these buildings may be a friendly call to your local HMRC office would be in order. I would bet they are not paying tax on the rental income.

If they are renting out the buildings contact your Local Authority Housing Office who are responsible for making sure the property is to approved standards. They tend to take a dim view of people living in sheds.

 

Al

[Fenman]

... Where I am in the borough of Barnet, permission has been given to demolish two perfectly good detached houses next door and replace them with a block of five flats, despite inadequate parking provision, etc.

 

The "inadequate parking provision" is a deliberate policy, to discourage car use. If you propose a development with more than (from memory) one parking place for every two flats, it will likely be turned down. You need to make adequate (ie, excessive) provision for cycle parking, too. Then again, London has some of the UK's lowest car ownership per household and parts of the borough have very good Tube links, so it's not such a dumb policy as it may appear.

 

Paul

[Fenman]

 A decent bung to the right people helps, or so I understand

 

This tired old trope is usually wheeled out whenever local government is discussed. There is not a shred of evidence that local government is more corrupt than any other sector of UK life, and some evidence that it may be substantially cleaner than most - how many tradesmen have you encountered who'll "knock off the vat for cash"? 

 

Years ago, Thatcher believed local government was endemically corrupt and tasked the then-feared Audit Commission to do a major study. To her horror, the AC found local government was substantially less corrupt than the private sector. There were only two conclusions you could draw: either local government was reasonably clean, or public sector managers were vastly more skilled than their private sector counter-parts at screwing the system. Neither fitted Thatcher's preconceived notions, so the topic was put to rest.

 

It's easy to sling accusations at public servants, especially when most of the public don't have a clue about how or why decisions are made (see some of the comments above about planning permission should have been refused because it damaged the value of a neighbour's property, or filled-in an infill site, or...).

 

Paul

[melmerby]

There was a programme on BBC a while back called "meet the Planners" (I think) and it's amazing what some people try and get a way with.

Likewise "sheds/store rooms" again amazing how many have people in them and in some areas usually illegal immigrants.

 

Keith

[Jol Wilkinson]

Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Are the Planning Regulations, Authorities and Officers fit for purpose?".

 

I saw an episode of Homes under the Hammer recently where it took three years for a builder/developer to get permission to convert two high street retail properties back to housing. During that time there were three arson attacks and other mindless damage caused.

 

Then you have Cafe Nero who like to open coffee shops without change of use applications, only to be let off the hook when it is discovered.

 

There are too many examples where the regs. are not adequately applied, not done so in a timely way and so on. 

[Bernard Lamb]

Interpretation doesn't come into it when the planning law states "You can not do...."

There were several things done which it said you will not get permission for.

I did look up the planning apps as I was curious as to what was going on.

I spoke to the local planning representitive on the Parish council and he agreed what was being done was not permitted and undesirable but changed his tune sometime later after the District Council decided not to persue it.

Having come up against problems both at home and in my day job I have learnt a bit about how the system works.

You can not do... So if that is what you want or need to do you do not put it on the plan.

You wait until the officials come to inspect the passed plan and then you show them the problem and suggest a solution.

They are usually very understanding. Oh, I see what you are trying to do but I can also see the problem. How can we jointly get round the issue? is the next question. Within reason of course. Act the goat and upset them and you are up the swannee.

There is always the exception to the rule. Some local authorities are more helpful than others. One in the London area will not budge. The only approach is to tell the client to forget it or move. I worked on industrial buildings not domestic. Another will sign, adding a standard statement as for the reason for the change. They knew full well that we would only ask for a concession if doing it to the rules was impossible. We even had a virtual rubber stamping from the fire and insurance people in that particular area. No names but quite a bit north of London. Not a case of who you know but just a case of all parties acting in a professional manner to get the job done and keep the client happy. What might not be permitted is not always undesirable.

Regarding dormers. One over the road is on the front. According to other residents who wanted similar that is no longer allowed. I have a dormer to the rear. It does not match the plans due to only finding out where the chimney stacks were when we took the roof off. A neighbour copied the plans for what I had done and the plans were rejected. You have to leave a larger space at each end was the official comment. he redid the plans. When they opened up the roof the same problem occurred and their dormer is exactly the same size as mine. Oddly enough the agreed height for the rebuilt chimney stacks is different.

Bernard

[jjb1970]

I have to say I'm always at a loss to understand that because of the job I choose to do, I'm greedy.  

Everyone has the same opportunity that I had to do it.  I found it very easy and I've never borrowed a penny to do this and I've never owed a penny to anyone. It took a year to build the first house by working for 4-5 days then spending evenings and all the available time on the build. No holidays or luxuries and a really strict home budget meant that at the finish I owed no one. I am not alone and know quite a few that have done it that way, So if working your bollox off to get on in life means I'm greedy then I must have the wrong dictionary.

 

The problem with Planning is that no matter how well thought out and workable the legislation is, it cannot take into account or deal with the petty jealousy that arises from it.

 

Hammer. Nail. Head.

 

I find it rather amusing when people accuse others of making easy profits, being overpaid for doing a job anybody could do etc as it does kind of beg the question of why they don't have a go themselves if it is so easy. Greed in business or anything else generally means "charging more than I can afford or am willing to pay" and rich means "somebody with more than me". Understandable emotions perhaps but hardly commendable ones. Rather than applaud success and value those who have worked hard, made sacrifices and taken risks to get ahead it seems many prefer to retreat into sullen resentment.

 

The following two quotes are from Adam Smith's seminal work on the wealth of nations and are as true today as they were in the 18th century:

 

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages

 

and

 

To prohibit a great people, however, from making all that they can of every part of their own produce, or from employing their stock and industry in the way that they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind.

[Horsetan]

Then I suggest that you give your local Social services a ring and inform them of that fact. Unless they are registered as habitable property they are breaking the law. Also it would be interesting to see what use they got planning permission for and did they put in a change of use application.

The original permission was to allow a detached house to be subdivided into two flats, plus the outbuilding to be used as a "utility/laundry room" only, and that there was to be no further development of that property. Within a year of the grant, Sharel Developments had shoved tenants into the outbuilding. Several complaints from me and other neighbours about this were ignored by Barnet.

 

In a more recent planning application to demolish the property and its neighbour and to replace it with a block of five flats (granted after appeal), Sharel openly admitted that they had been renting out the outbuilding as a third flat. Barnet had not considered enforcement of the previous conditions to be worth pursuing. What is the point of setting conditions when they are brazenly flouted?

 

Within the next three years, this cul-de-sac of late 1920s properties will be subjected to about a year of hell as the two houses are demolished and a block of eyesore flats goes up.

 

..,If they are renting out these out these buildings may be a friendly call to your local HMRC office would be in order. I would bet they are not paying tax on the rental income.

Sharel Developments is a company registered in Gibraltar. What are the chances of HMRC being interested in chasing them?

 

If they are renting out the buildings contact your Local Authority Housing Office who are responsible for making sure the property is to approved standards. They tend to take a dim view of people living in sheds.

This is Barnet. Barnet don't give a damn. Edited May 20, 2017 by Horsetan

[polybear]

Planning legislation is only as good as the Local Authority and it's wish or otherwise to enforce it.

 

A few doors away from me (fortunately not close enough to affect me) there was a 2 bed corner bungalow which was the original site developer's prefered plan. Bungalows on corners, semis or detached running up each side of the street.

A builder bought said bungalow and started extending it up and out in three directions, effectively converting it into a house. It is now approximately twice the size it was.

At the time I was having some interior building work done by a builder/architect aquaintance of mine and he commented (being au fait with the planning laws) "Has he got permission to do that? As it is well outside permmitted development"

So curious I looked on the council's website and found that no planning application for the majority of work had even been made.

I contaced the council and they decided to organise a site visit which found several flagrant breaches of the current regulations.

 

After some shilly-shalling around and some superfluous mods, which included reducing the height of the perimeter wall which was way over the 2m limit adjacent to a highway, which still didn't bring it into line, the council gave in on the pretext "they were only minor infringements" and wouldn't persue it further. (the architect friend was appalled by what happened!)

So if you want to extend upwards a single story bungalow to make a two story house, extend in one direction much too close to one neighbour, in the second direction likewise and use completely different materials which don't blend with the original come and live around here.

Strangely the same council have refused and enforced other bungalow owners permission to add even a dormer room in the loft without increasing the permitted height!

 

I get the impression someone knew someone somewhere!

 

Keith

 

 

See post #7......

 

If talking about moral rights, why do people think they have a right to dictate to neighbours what they can and can't do with their land? People seem to think the neighbour is greedy, then talk about loss of value to their own property, that's a bit of kettle calling pot black. Personally I think greed is usually used to describe rational self interest to describe others but that is another argument.

This is a classic example of where people have a right to not like something and object, but I do not see that anybody has a right to impose their position on others, whether that be a dislike of gay people or other things many don't like or people building a house.

 

If a person has (for example) a 200K mortgage on a house, only to see a sudden and significant drop in the properties' value due to adverse develop, they could then very easily end up with negative equity which could blight them for years to come (as many thousands of families found in the 90's IIRC, though not in fairness due to development issues).  Nothing to do with being greedy in my book.

[chris p bacon]

If a person has (for example) a 200K mortgage on a house, only to see a sudden and significant drop in the properties' value due to adverse develop, they could then very easily end up with negative equity which could blight them for years to come (as many thousands of families found in the 90's IIRC, though not in fairness due to development issues).  Nothing to do with being greedy in my book.

 

Are people buying a house to live in,  or an investment ?   If the latter then I'm often reminded of the line in most sales offers "The value of your investment may go down".  

 

The reality is that the chances of being blighted by a development that makes a significant impact on the value of a home is very rare (I can't even think of one), homeowners are more than capable of blighting their own home and lowering its value by the choices they make in decoration and lack of maintenance.  The upside is that with others spending their money and improving areas it generally results in a rise in values.

Obviously that doesn't suit the negative narrative of greed and corruption that comes with planning topics.

[LBRJ]

My take on the "House in every garden" approach that we now have is that we have architecturally grotesque cookie cutter houses thrown up by cheap skate builders all over the place.

There is no regard whatsoever for "fitting in" or being architecturally appropriate for the area - just bang em up and count the $$ later.

 

Renovation in a sympathetic manner of existing structures is a totally different matter - It is recycling on the grand scale and should be encouraged, particularly at the expense of  those hell bent on ruining the historical built environment we already have.

Edited May 20, 2017 by LBRJ

[Horsetan]

My take on the "House in every garden" approach that we now have is that we have architecturally grotesque cookie cutter houses thrown up by cheap skate builders all over the place.

There is no regard whatsoever for "fitting in" or being architecturally appropriate for the area - just bang em up and count the $$ later.

 

Renovation in a sympathetic manner of existing structures is a totally different matter - It is recycling on the grand scale and should be encouraged, particularly at the expense of those hell bent on ruining the historical built environment we already have.

What you need is something like the Mill Hill Village Preservation Society, which has been able to stop just about any development in its area, thus retaining the chocolate box appearance of Mill Hill Village (which no longer has any shops)....

[LBRJ]

What you need is something like the Mill Hill Village Preservation Society, which has been able to stop just about any development in its area, thus retaining the chocolate box appearance of Mill Hill Village (which no longer has any shops)....

 

No, that is really what you do not need.

What you need is buildings fit for purpose, not just now but in a century. Rather like 1930s council houses still are.

Re-use what you do have - and make whatever you need to add be just as good as what is there before, both functionally and aesthetically.

[chris p bacon]

My take on the "House in every garden" approach that we now have is that we have architecturally grotesque cookie cutter houses thrown up by cheap skate builders all over the place.

There is no regard whatsoever for "fitting in" or being architecturally appropriate for the area - just bang em up and count the $$ later.

 

Renovation in a sympathetic manner of existing structures is a totally different matter - It is recycling on the grand scale and should be encouraged, particularly at the expense of  those hell bent on ruining the historical built environment we already have.

Here we go again. If you cut the sarcastic remarks you won't look like a troll.

 

To answer your points.

 

I'm often asked by people "If I buy a plot of land will you build the house of my dreams" my answer is "No, I'll build a house the planner wants you to live in"

 

Over the years I've submitted applications for houses and they've been rejected because "They have too much detail of the local vernacular design" or "They are too sympathetic to the neighbouring properties"  As a developer I don't get to choose what we build, it comes about after some protracted negotiations with the LPA until a design is reached, that conforms to what they want to pass. 

 

 

As for renovation, You have to realise that the built enviroment we have now has come about over several hundred years and what you regard as a "historical built environment" hides some of the poorest buildings it's possible to live in. In Potton people think they are buying a Victorian Terraced cottage until surveyed and then they find a (very poor) timber framed building from the late 1700/early 1800's that are so expensive to renovate that they are in a state of limbo as planning won't allow major works to bring them up to a modern standard. They are just about mortgageable so they end up as cheap but poor housing.

The sad fact is that some designs of house that people find "quaint or attractive" are actually inefficient and wasteful and are too expensive to bring up to a modern standard of living.

 

I live in a Victorian house,  outside is original (except windows)  but inside it is a modern house, I renovated it 17 years ago, and it would at the time have been far cheaper to have demolished it and built it again.