Boris U-TURN – New Planning Reforms ditched!

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 04/10/2021 - 17:35
If a developer has not learnt the rules inside out then they will not succeed as a business.

I agree it can be hard to object and tough given alot of planners I have spoken to know the basics of planning but make errors which enable a developer to overturn the ruling at appeal.

It is no different to going to court - it is not about right and wrong it is about who knows and complied with the rules better than the other party

Reply to the comment left by Andrew at 04/10/2021 - 17:42
So what this adds up to is that lberalising the rules to make it easier for developers is NOT a good thing, except big developers with enough cash in case they meet anyone who needs their pockets lining, be it lawyers, dodgy planning officers or political parties....

Reply to the comment left by M&SFAN at 04/10/2021 - 18:37
Im not sure Id say that personally. I dont know anyone that bribes / lines the pockets of others, firstly its illegal, secondly its not a sustainable business model.

Converting defunct buildings is needed - it regenerates neglected or vacant buildings. Tearing up the green land is not sustainable nor environmental. Sadly consumers flock to fill new builds thus driving demand for this model.

I can't speak for areas outside London, but where property prices are high, expensive "investment" development is widespread and it doesn't matter if anyone makes a home there or not. One also has to face the overwhelming evidence that the UK is a major centre for money laundering. (You might find it interesting to view the BBC Panorama programmes on the vast international investigation "The Pandora Papers" which trace how central property is, to money laundering and corruption. It's a good watch even if you don't really want to get involved in the argument!) On a smaller scale a colleague is constantly being offered bungs for giving the all clear to unsatisfactory council developments.....

Reply to the comment left by M&SFAN at 04/10/2021 - 22:51
Firstly I would advise your friend to report any bungs and not to take any - this could land them not only the sack but a stay in a large HMO

Yes the BBC does some interesting reporting - some of it has to be taken with a pinch of salt as it can be factually wrong or biased - not saying this is or isnt but some housing stuff has been wide of the mark

London is a unique market with its own eco system and is not representative of the wider UK market - I guess thats why we have a levelling up program and devolved governments local mayors etc

Reply to the comment left by Andrew at 05/10/2021 - 21:57
Our friend is most scrupulous and never takes bribes. In fact, he is most concerned at the lowering of safety standards involved, as I am, but reporting to the authorities, (as can be deduced from listening to the ongoing Grenfell reports on the radio), can be ineffectual and also damaging for the whistleblower). Corruption is I think that corruption is more widespread than generally suspected, and probably has been for years. Perhaps it is just human nature.

And yes, London is a unique market, but sadly not unique in the lack of affordability for people who just want somewhere to live. I have friends in Cornwall who are extremely upset at how impossible it is for their young people to find the money for a home in the area now, and this is true to a lesser extent in Suffolk, a place I know well, where wages are low and prices have risen.

In most rural areas I suspect the problem is second homes and an unbalanced local economy, not money laundering, though, so a bit more benign.

The common factor is that housing is seen as a financial commodity. In many other European countries - ironically, the ones, like Germany, where renting (from private landlords) is more common than here, housing is mainly about people finding a decent home, whether rented or purchased. Indeed, it used to be like that in Britain until about the late 1960s. So the likes of us small landlords could be part of the solution!

I am sure you'll agree it's a fiendishly complicated knot to untie, and I can't really offer useful suggestions as to how to do it!

I'm not sure how widespread corruption is. The recent application that I discussed with a planning consultant and which caused him to say "...somebody got paid.." had caused me frustration because the submitted planning documents had statements in them that could not be reconciled with the truth. My suspicion is the people "being paid" were the people submitting the documents. But of course, you do not know. And if you comment on the things that are untrue they are not taken account of; your comments are either ignored or they are dismissed as not relevant to the planning application.
I am aware that occasionally people sit on committees and vote on applications even though they have a conflict of interest and are strictly not permitted to vote. I'm not sure whether this happens because they do not know the regulations or because they know the conflicts of interest statements are just a tick-box exercise and this area is not policed.
And of course you also hear rumours. So and so who sits on the planning committee or attends it in some capacity and then can help you in your application as a 'planning consultant'. Talk to so and so, pay him a few thousand as a 'planning consultant' and your application will get through. It's hard to know in these circumstances whether that's just knowledge of the process, whether cash changed hands in a brown envelope, or whether the Consultancy Fees just escaped the rules. The problem is you don't know.
And as a community you look at something going through that is against policy and you think, "...how did that happen then?"
So when you have the opportunity you vote for something else.

Reply to the comment left by M&SFAN at 28/09/2021 - 18:33
Some Councils ride roughshod over the wishes of local residents so MORE power to them is dangerous. Maidenhead is turning into Manhattan because the Council wants thousands of flats to provide huge Council Tax revenues.

Reply to the comment left by Peter G at 14/10/2021 - 13:49
I agree to more power to Councils being dangerous: A recent application affecting the community in which I live was recommended for approval by the Council, even though the community was against it and it was contrary to local policies.

Communities have no power. Giving more power to Councils without ensuring that Councils do not form alliances with developers and follow their own policies is not just dangerous, but extremely dangerous.

The problem is that communities have little or no power, little time, little resources; I also think that the information provided on the planning process is inadequate for communities to be able to defend themselves.

Reply to the comment left by M&SFAN at 05/10/2021 - 23:49
I'd be happy with the German model of renting, where the Tenant is responsible for all of the content of the property and its maintenance, including boilers, decoration, white goods, etc. If this was adopted in the UK rents would probably FALL (as rents would not need to allow for the high maintenance costs and redecoration) but this would be GOOD as rental incomes would be more certain and tenancies would be longer (if the German experience happens here too). Both of which would encourage more people to buy and rent out properties. The existing UK model is the problem and needs urgent change.