advertisement


Housing developments to get automatic planning permission

gavreid

gavreid

Pretty Words...
I'm anything but familiar with the issues here but this looks very serious...

I understand that a lot of the infrastructure that Councils demand from the developers, access and road widening, sewage and water run off, flood plain issues, green space, shops, doctors' surgeries etc etc are connected to the planning process.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53625960
 
I would agree with your concerns in principal but regarding the issue of building on flood plains, that has been going on for years. Despite the long term liability and cost to all of us of allowing such development it doesn't stop stupid councils allowing flood plains being built on in inappropriate ways.
 
gavreid said:
I'm anything but familiar with the issues here but this looks very serious...

I understand that a lot of the infrastructure that Councils demand from the developers, access and road widening, sewage and water run off, flood plain issues, green space, shops, doctors' surgeries etc etc are connected to the planning process.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53625960
Click to expand...

Well, we won't be needing doctors' surgeries any more, just a laptop and reliable broadband for our 'consultations'.
 
It is very difficult to judge exactly what is meant as the proposal is that planning permission can be assumed to be given on land ear-marked "for renewal", and as such is very close to where we are now anyway. The implication is that the subtle change will speed things up rather than any other effect.
 
Bad news. I collect traffic data during the early stages of planning for highway consultants -- most of my work comes from planning schemes for housing, offices, schools etc. On the back of no work since March I'm left wondering whether this is the final nail in the coffin. I have my health and sanity so I cannot complain.

I look forward to speaking with clients next week to see what their opinions are.
 
"Nine in 10 planning applications are approved by councils, while more than a million homes given planning permission in the last decade have not yet been built," he said.

yes , been studying traffic data plans in depth for a recent application which in my opinion was unsafe but it was granted

planners already give planning to new builds pretty much automatically despite objections
 
Planning applications are usually granted because they're often won on appeal anyway. Nevertheless, that's a strong quid pro quo in the process that can leverage improvements from the developers - presumably that has all gone.

Near where I live there's a historic site that was protected imperpituity by Act of Parliament, owing to a very large number of deaths on the battlefield there - that didn't stop the Tories, they just abolished the Act!
 
Snufkin said:
I would agree with your concerns in principal but regarding the issue of building on flood plains, that has been going on for years. Despite the long term liability and cost to all of us of allowing such development it doesn't stop stupid councils allowing flood plains being built on in inappropriate ways.
Click to expand...

There're flood plains and flood plains of course, presumable the less risky areas are already built on in the main. I guess it's buyer beware but there has to be a limit to that if those with oversight have been negligent.
 
gavreid said:
There're flood plains and flood plains of course, presumable the less risky areas are already built on in the main. I guess it's buyer beware but there has to be a limit to that if those with oversight have been negligent.
Click to expand...

What you mean is, dead easy to build on land, it being flat and all that on floodplains meaning, far larger profit margins. The "river straightening" that often goes hand in hand with these expensive rabbit hutches also feeds into flooding issues, as the river then runs far quicker than it previously did.
 
gavreid said:
There're flood plains and flood plains of course, presumable the less risky areas are already built on in the main. I guess it's buyer beware but there has to be a limit to that if those with oversight have been negligent.
Click to expand...
I think I should have put more emphasis on appropriate development. Building by rivers and on flood plains is feasible if allowances are made for flooding. Buildings with flood spaces underneath is one method but it costs more and that’s' not the British way. If you are building for poor people and you wish to maximise your profits you make sure any additional cost or risks are passed onto the Government – they can mop up the mess later.

Remember the Tory moto – privatise the profits and socialise the loss.
 
Snufkin said:
Remember the Tory moto – privatise the profits and socialise the loss.
Click to expand...

That might be appropriate in this case, but as planning details at local level have precisely nothing whatsoever to do with central government, it isn't.

Planning/development strategy is determined at district? level.
 
Vinny said:
That might be appropriate in this case, but as planning details at local level have precisely nothing whatsoever to do with central government, it isn't.

Planning/development strategy is determined at district? level.
Click to expand...
Sort of but the Local Authority gets its authority from Central Government. When we have problems like flooding it often falls to Central Government to clear up the mess. And lets not forget the burden placed on insurance; we all pay for that.
 
Snufkin said:
Sort of but the Local Authority gets its authority from Central Government. When we have problems like flooding it often falls to Central Government to clear up the mess. And lets not forget the burden placed on insurance; we all pay for that.
Click to expand...

I think the appeal to the Secretary of State has undermined the whole process.
 
Presumably this might have applied to the Jenrick/Desmond situation where the land was allegedly for renewal? The fact that local residents can hardly get their washing machines to work just now due to lack of water pressure will possibly not even figure in the future for such developments?
 
Banks and building societies are very twitchy about Lending with any hint of flooding or the potential to flood, chances are the big builders ‘fix’ this but when you try to renew insurance or sell on many will be stuffed. Not that the Tories will give a toss as they pick up their bungs.
 
gavreid said:
I'm anything but familiar with the issues here but this looks very serious...

I understand that a lot of the infrastructure that Councils demand from the developers, access and road widening, sewage and water run off, flood plain issues, green space, shops, doctors' surgeries etc etc are connected to the planning process.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53625960
Click to expand...

Won't someone please think of the nature...:(
 
Last edited:
Population of the UK has risen by 8 million in the last 20 years, that's 16 cities the size of Sheffield.

More people, more houses, more cars, more pollution.

It's progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top