Are Planning Regs fit for purpose.

[Loconuts]

Are our planning regs outdated or not. The example I quote is, if I purchase a semi-detached house and pay the premium for being a semi and not a end of terrace only to find that my neighbour puts in plans to build a separate property on the end of his property and thereby making my property a end of terrace property and causing a loss in value. His intention is to sell both properties and make a quick buck.

 

Before anyone asks, yes his plans were approved even though they did not comply to several building regs including over development of his land.

[Horsetan]

I think that depends on the area you're in, and whether your local council is favourable to any form of development.

 

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.

[Oldddudders]

I believe central government has set local authority targets for increasing the numbers of dwellings, because there aren't nearly enough. So planning applications that do that are off to a good start. Details like parking are not a reason to fail to meet targets imposed from above. 

[chris p bacon]

Are our planning regs outdated or not. The example I quote is, if I purchase a semi-detached house and pay the premium for being a semi and not a end of terrace only to find that my neighbour puts in plans to build a separate property on the end of his property and thereby making my property a end of terrace property and causing a loss in value. His intention is to sell both properties and make a quick buck.

 

Before anyone asks, yes his plans were approved even though they did not comply to several building regs including over development of his land.

The current planning law was updated only a couple of years ago to "free it up". Whatever planning law is changed suits one but not another. 

 

 Picking up on your first point, whether you paid a premium for a semi and it is now devalued as a terrace has never been a planning issue, Planning does not take into account the financial return for the owner or developer it decides whether a project falls within the scope of current legislation.

 

If it is overdevelopment then there must be a reason given within the decision as to why the planning officer thought it did not need to comply. Planning decisions are searchable online (with the address or ref no) and all paperwork acrued during the process is publically accessible.

 

No idea where you are but here semi's do not command a premium over end terrace, it's the number of bedrooms that count and the floor area. An end terrace is essentially a semi still.

[Guest]

I've never heard of an end-of-terrace being automatically at a financial disadvantage over a semi. Our end-of-terrace has just gone on the market and the agent asked if we'd like to be described as end-of-terrace or semi, because we are both, as Dave points out above.

Obviously, I can understand a detached house commanding a premium over either. House values are usually dependent on area, property size, plot size and whether the property is in good order or not. I'd be surprised if being attached to more than one other dwelling makes any odds, unless the "snob effect" comes into play *

 

* Imagine a Hyacinth Bouquet voice... "Oh yes, we're semi-detached, you know. Unlike the poor people at the other end of town who have to live in terraces"...

[polybear]

His intention is to sell both properties and make a quick buck.

 

 

Make your house look like a right Sh!thole around the time he wants to sell the houses (derelict car in the garden, loud heavy metal music playing, rubbish in the garden, rabid rottweiler etc.).  Make the b'stad struggle for his money

[polybear]

Before anyone asks, yes his plans were approved even though they did not comply to several building regs including over development of his land.

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

[Bernard Lamb]

As Ian and Dave have pointed out local authorities are being encouraged to provide more houses.

Semi to end of terrace. Then dig out a basement for it and sell that as a separate dwelling.

What was previously not allowed is now fairly common place.

The idea of a 14 story tower block on the local station forecourt is ruffling a few feathers though.

Move into a conservation area and you will have a bit more protection.

Funnily enough terrace houses seem to fetch very good prices when compared with semis of a similar size. Probably due to the location of such houses near to railway stations in many cases.

Bernard

[john new]

In answer to the OP it partly depends if you are an objector to a proposal or the proposer.  Presumption in favour of the developer has long been the de-facto rule of thumb and decisions on aesthetics are always subjective.

 

Re semi - v -  E o T descriptions: 30 years ago we sold our end of terrace semi as a tremi - the word sparked curiosity with purchasers as it had to us previously when we bought it and it sold reasonably quickly.

Edited May 19, 2017 by john new

[Enterprisingwestern]

I think that depends on the area you're in, and whether your local council is favourable to any form of development.

 

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.

 

You should what they get up to in the Bournemouth area!

 

Mike.

[polybear]

Move into a conservation area and you will have a bit more protection.

 

 

I "used" to live in a green belt area.  I still live there, but they found a way of shifting the goalposts, as they do.

[jjb1970]

You bought your house, not the next door neighbours. If they have planning permission to build a second house onto the end of theirs then what they do with their property/land is their business.

[Dungrange]

From speaking to our local councillor just over a year ago about a proposed development in my own street, I was informed that the planning officer's starting point is automatically a presumption in favour of development, unless there are good reasons for rejecting the proposals.  Therefore, for anyone who is opposed to a development, the onus is effectively on them to demonstrate why it is unacceptable in planning terms.  However, there are many issues that are not relevant to the planning decision including any perceived changes in the values of surrounding properties or loss of views etc.  The planning officer will also ignore any potential legal issues (such as land ownership or access rights) and issues connected with compliance with building standards.  These are dealt with separately to the planning process.  The development will require both planning permission and a building warrant.  Legal issues need to be dealt with through the courts.

 

Parking is a planning issue, but how much is required is very dependant on where the development takes place.  In a semi-rural area in the suburbs, there will normally be a requirement for at least one or two car parking spaces per residence depending on the size of the properties.  However, for development close to good public transport links the requirement will be less and in city centre locations, it may well be zero.  There should be defined parking standards for each council area.

 

Whether the architectural style of a property fits with the character of the area is a subjective decision.  Whether the proposed development is consistent with the density of surrounding plots and the massing of the building is consistent with the surrounding area is less subjective (ie you can assign a number to these), but it is still possible for a developer to 'push the boundaries' a bit.  That is squeeze a slightly higher development density into a site, providing it is not significantly more than the surrounding area.  The planning officer will therefore have to consider the need for additional housing against the desire not to significantly increase property density in the area. The issue of over development is therefore slightly subjective.

 

How homogeneous the surroundings are will also be a factor.  Where properties are very similar, the planning officer will normally require that any development has a ridge height that is consistent with adjacent properties. However, where the surroundings comprise buildings that are a mix of heights, this is usually considered less relevant and if the surrounding area comprised properties that are three, four and five storeys high, then any three, four, five or even six storey building may be considered acceptable.

 

If planning permission has been granted, then there is probably very little that you can do.  However, like others have said, I'm not convinced that an end terraced property is worth less than a semi detached one.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Dungrange

[Horsetan]

You should what they get up to in the Bournemouth area!.

I hear planning permission's a bit of a no-go area in Spain as well.

[chris p bacon]

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

Oh,  if only it were that simple.......I could have saved thousands over the last few years.

 

I do this for a living and I'm often quite amused as to the reasons why people don't like planning applications near them. A couple of years ago I built a bungalow in Little Paxton near St Neots and 2 of the neighbours were the most objectionable people I've met in a long time.

The build took just over 3 years to complete and during that time I was physically assaulted by one neighbour (75 yrs old) continually held up with petty complaints to planning by the other resulting in  meeting after meeting with the planning officer on site. In the end the planning officers assigned the most senior to the build and I had to deal with him directly (fine by me) they made complaints that I was disturbing bats (No evidence of bats on site) had found and moved Great Crested Newts (yeh right) in fact you name it I'd done it. In the end I would build another house elsewhere, return for 3 months then as the complaints increased leave site until they calmed down.

The bungalow was finished and sold very quickly even though I was honest and wrote a full report of the antagonism and gave it to the buyers, they already lived nearby and where fully aware.  At the finish I had a meeting with planning after the property was sold. they showed me the file and the admin girls asked how I'd coped,  they had been running a book on how long I would last (they all lost) it seems the neighbours had been ringing up to 3 times a day asking for the site to be stopped, there were approx 900 phone calls logged as well as 100 emails and several letters.

The funniest one was where they'd asked for the permission to be stripped and to have the bungalow demolished, not realising that the planning permission was the same one that their own houses had been built under 2 years before. Had it of been possible to do as they ask it would have meant the demolition of their own properties.

 

I did take great delight on the final day as I waited to hand over the keys to the new owners, one of the neighbours came over and spoke to me, I thanked them for making me wait, as with the market changes in the area I'd made £50,000 more than anticipated and with the other builds I'd had the best year ever.

[LBRJ]

An end of terrace is a semi, by definition.

 

Personally I think greedy builders that "infill" long standing street patterns should be "prevented" but thats how its legislated.

 

Houses should be re-made to suit modern life, not lose their gardens to profit grabbers  

[Enterprisingwestern]

I hear planning permission's a bit of a no-go area in Spain as well.

 

I couldn't possibly comment!

Especially having just had an interesting 6 months with the Valencian government, whereby my neighbours and I could have lost everything.

 

Mike.

[polybear]

You bought your house, not the next door neighbours. If they have planning permission to build a second house onto the end of theirs then what they do with their property/land is their business.

Quite possibly, however you may feel differently if one of your neighbours were to develop their property such that it halved the value of your house and/or made it very difficult to sell, or unfairly (and significantly) adversely affected the quality of your life. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

Quite possibly, however you may feel differently if one of your neighbours were to develop their property such that it halved the value of your house and/or made it very difficult to sell, or unfairly (and significantly) adversely affected the quality of your life. 

 

There is also a difference between legally right and morally right. Regrettably in this money orientated world in which we live, they don't seem to go hand in hand.

 

Mike.

[jjb1970]

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.

Edited May 20, 2017 by jjb1970

[chris p bacon]

Personally I think greedy builders that "infill" long standing street patterns should be "prevented" but thats how its legislated.

 

Houses should be re-made to suit modern life, not lose their gardens to profit grabbers  

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.

 

Infill, this is the prefered option under planning law. It would be far easier for me to buy a green field site and build there than inbetween 2 existing houses.

 

Garden Grabbing, again this is the prefered planning option, There are very few people who want a large garden nowadays, my own is a quarter acre in the middle of town and in conversation with an agent I'm told it will make it hard to sell the house, to the point where it might devalue the property. It must be remembered that as a builder I don't hold a gun to someones head to sell the garden, they come to me with an offer.

 

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.

[Horsetan]

.....Garden Grabbing, again this is the prefered planning option, ....

Here's a couple of examples practically next door:

 

[melmerby]

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

Edited May 20, 2017 by melmerby

[chris p bacon]

Here's a couple of examples practically next door:

 

IMG_20170520_111306.jpg

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.

[melmerby]

Here's a couple of examples practically next door:

 

IMG_20170520_111306.jpg

Surely that's not garden grabbing, just nice model railway rooms?

 

Keith