| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Proposed changes to permitted development?
I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the
government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
"geraldthehamster" wrote in message ... I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Is this what you heard? http://tinyurl.com/35mf4dl -- Tinkerer |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 5, 3:31*pm, geraldthehamster wrote:
I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard I think there's something about no planning permission rquired for PV panels &c to be required in the pipeline. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 5, 3:41*pm, "Tinkerer"
wrote: "geraldthehamster" wrote in message ... I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Is this what you heard?http://tinyurl.com/35mf4dl -- Tinkerer Yes, I found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11921000 and if this is the story in question, it sounds like a car crash, with the extent of PD being decided by all the local NIMBYs with time on their hands. Cheers Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
geraldthehamster wrote:
I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. 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 |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
"geraldthehamster" wrote in message ... On Dec 5, 3:41 pm, "Tinkerer" wrote: "geraldthehamster" wrote in message ... I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Is this what you heard?http://tinyurl.com/35mf4dl -- Tinkerer Yes, I found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11921000 and if this is the story in question, it sounds like a car crash, with the extent of PD being decided by all the local NIMBYs with time on their hands. Indeed. -- Tinkerer |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember geraldthehamster saying something like: Yes, I found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11921000 and if this is the story in question, it sounds like a car crash, with the extent of PD being decided by all the local NIMBYs with time on their hands. 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. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 5, 4:05*pm, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember geraldthehamster saying something like: Yes, I found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11921000 and if this is the story in question, it sounds like a car crash, with the extent of PD being decided by all the local NIMBYs with time on their hands. 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 |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
harry wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:31 pm, wrote: I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard I think there's something about no planning permission rquired for PV panels&c to be required in the pipeline. There is no need for PP for PV panels currently. Bob |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
geraldthehamster wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:41 pm, "Tinkerer" wrote: "geraldthehamster" wrote in message ... I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Is this what you heard?http://tinyurl.com/35mf4dl -- Tinkerer Yes, I found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11921000 and if this is the story in question, it sounds like a car crash, with the extent of PD being decided by all the local NIMBYs with time on their hands. 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. Cheers Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
geraldthehamster wrote:
On Dec 5, 4:05 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember geraldthehamster saying something like: Yes, I found this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11921000 and if this is the story in question, it sounds like a car crash, with the extent of PD being decided by all the local NIMBYs with time on their hands. 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. 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 (if any were needed) that the current government (which nobody voted for) lives on another planet. More evidence that pickles knows the score frankly. Cheers Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
Bob Minchin wrote:
harry wrote: On Dec 5, 3:31 pm, wrote: I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard I think there's something about no planning permission rquired for PV panels&c to be required in the pipeline. There i Think there is in conservation areas actually. Anyway, PV panels will be a thing of the past once the FITS are removed. Completely disgraceful scam at teh moment. Stealing from those who dont have them, basically. Bob |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 5, 3:41*pm, "Tinkerer"
wrote: "geraldthehamster" wrote in message ... I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Is this what you heard?http://tinyurl.com/35mf4dl -- Tinkerer I wonder how much it all will cost? Sure to cost more. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On 5 Dec, 17:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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. 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 |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On 5 Dec, 22:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , *geraldthehamster wrote: On 5 Dec, 17:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote: 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. 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. 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? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689- Hide quoted text - - Show 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 |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 5, 4:05*pm, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote: 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 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 |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
In message , Tim
Streater writes In article , geraldthehamster wrote: 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. 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. 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 -- Tim Lamb |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On 5 Dec, 15:31, geraldthehamster wrote:
I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard This is the transcript from Greg Clark's speech: http://www.communities.gov.uk/speech...pationplanning I'm interested to see how this pans out, I work in architectural practice so deal with planners every day. Hopefully they will release a bit more detail on how this will actually work. It could make life a lot easier, or a lot harder! 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 |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On 6 Dec, 10:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , *geraldthehamster wrote: 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. 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. 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 |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
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. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
geraldthehamster wrote:
On 5 Dec, 17:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote: 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. 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; Then they have only themselves to blame. 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. Which may indeed be better for the community than the local mafia gang at the borough council or whitehall. At least local action can vote the *******s out. If you are as we are, a country shore that has been hammered for the last 15 years by anti-rural class warriors who perceive anyone with a real job and some income as a despicable target for taxation, rule imposition and the dumping of urban trash on, then anythign is preferable. At least IO know a man with a trailer full of horse **** for the councillors doorstep. No chance getting anywhere near Prest****. 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. Precisely, as do Parish councillors. The cliques who will take advantage of the new system will be accountable to nobody. Rubbish. I am seriously thinking of standing for Parish council because we have exactly the clique you describe on it. If I did, and go elected, at elast I could tell people waht was going down. Even if I couldn't stop it. Local referendums on their decisions won't amount to much, as most people won't be interested or bother to vote; Apathy is no excuse. If you dont care, it WILL happen. And orther peoples apathy is a cop out for your OWN laziness. GET involved. IF its important. OTOH if you are the one person who wants the gipsy camp or wind 'farm' in your field, and the 60 grand a year government handout that goes with it, you have nowhere to hide when the people in the pub turn their backs on you and you get your face spat at in the street. Yes, it happens. Centralisation meant you could hide your greed behind government policy. Localisation means you cant. 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. Exactly, and since they had **** all powers anyway, they only did it to mis-represent objections to their own little plans. BUT under Pickles, sod it, I may give it a go. And get those ****s OUT. We ave had more than one run in with them, and I am sick of em. Cheers Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
Tim Streater wrote:
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". You can. It doesn't carry legal weight currently, but in time it may. We stood there and ripped our parish councillors apart in front of the borough and county councillors, asking them who stood to benefit..(mumble mumble) and I think they were dismayed enough to slacken the pressure, and somehow the borough council then decided on 'quite different grounds' to not support their application. What you have is behind the scenes money against vocal public oppositon. Pickles is trying to legalise the vocal public bit. It aint perfect, but I reckon it may be better. The real s=question is, who is to decide on what happens locally? Brussels? Whitehall? Town hall? or parish? Here we need more jobs, not more houses. they would simply be filled with people out of work on social security. But housing is more valuable than light industrial or office space, in the sticks. and can't carry as many people so it strains the infrastructure more. There has to be a *planning* reason. No there doesn't. Not in absolute terms. A thosand peoplesayng we dont want it IS a planing reason. If it comes to that. It isn't a reason on which planning authorities may currently refuse application, but that's down to government meddling ever since WWII. If pcles wants to wunwind that, more per to his elbow! 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? You cant GET a refernedum called, and most people in local govt take the easy way out. At our vocal meeting, the where the whole status of the village from village to 'small town' was under discussion, the best the ****y councillor could was say how distasteful it was to find plastic bags of dog**** scattered round the recreation ground. Well at least if there wasn't a ****ed up byelaw making it and offence to NOT put it in plastic bags, it would be dog**** without the plastic bags, which is nice and green and biodegradable..... That's the sort of dimwitted excuses that need to be pushed out. But snce she was powerless to do anything anyway, what's the point? The whole way that first Thatcher and then Prescott ripped into local government was to make sure it do what central govt. wanted. So it couldn't spend huge amounts of dosh on pure corruption. In theory. It hasn't worked. Its just as corrupt, but it hides behind 'European directives' and 'central government edicts' Its all more subtle, but nothing has changed. But IF you can make sure that the buck stops with *locally elected* representatives, then if there is a bad smell in city hall, you CAN vote the *******s out. And for no other reason than you don't want them there. .. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
geraldthehamster wrote:
On 5 Dec, 22:07, Tim Streater wrote: In article , geraldthehamster wrote: On 5 Dec, 17:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote: 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. 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. 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? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689- Hide quoted text - - Show 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". Exacshully. That's why you still have e.g. a borough wide planning process. However if the application has no county wide impacts, its a rubber stamp job. Or should be. If it has national impact, the of curse the final appeal I suppose is to the D of Env or whatever its called. 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. That is no bad thing. I.e. IF you want that dirty stinking waste tip there, please can I be paid 20 grand up front and 5 grand a year to live next to it, to compensate for the loss of amenity and the loss of property value...IF tat were the sort of case, then people would have to rethink what letting the market decide meant. At the moment its enough to buy a few councillors and threaten the rest with expensive appeals. If you had to buy a whole neighborhohod, then it would be a different matter entirely. Localism as outlined in "The Plan" is a rather different animal to what you seem to perceive it to be. Just as Thatcher centralised and emasculated local authorities to get rid of massive wastes of money on loony left projects, that led naturally to prescott et al taking over that process to force the whole country into one huge loony left project, the current lads have learnt the lesson and by devolving power hope to find a better solution. The idea is to le the people really have power, in the hope that they actually know what they need better than the public servant does, and so can instruct him what to do. That's the line I am taking with our MP, that he is here to do what WE want. He isn't our leader, he is a worker we employ to do a job and we will tell him what to do thank you. And if the local council wont play ball, can he tell us how to sack them please. The exact turn of phrase I used to his secretary was "We don't expect our MP to personally endorse our views, however we consider it his duty to represent them in parliament." Nothing will change if you dont make it happen. At least we now have a fighting chance of making a difference. Under NuLaber we were totally powerless to prevent us being raped as non labour constituencies. We were the target of a vicious class war invented by and sustained by Nu Laber against people who they saw as a great way to raise taxes and living in a place they could, by decree, export all their problem citizens to, and thereby gain political advantage. At least that has stopped. But there is a total legacy of apathy left behind, of people who have been educated to take what teacher says, what the politicians say, as Gospel, and who cannot apparently live without a set of rules that encompasses every single aspect of their lives. Localism is a body blow to that. People will have to think and act instead of whining. I am up for it. You may not be. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
Tim Streater wrote:
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 7-beds (extras in the roof). Has higher-up windows that then overlooked the neighbour. 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. +100 Building regs have the ultimate sanction that can force complete demolition. Not so planning. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
matthelliwell wrote:
On Dec 5, 4:05 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: 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 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 +1 That's my hope. Mostly round here, I don't give a ****. BUT when they want to stack Stansted incoming overhead at 3000 feet plus one plane every 5 minutes, turn the village into a town, spend a million of European money turning an illegal traveller site into a 'legal' one and handing it over to the lucky diddies to profit from, or build a set of useless bloody windmills that benefit no one except the landowner I am VERY interested indeed. Or more positively, if instead of 150 houses that no one who wants could afford ( unless it was paid on the 'sosh'), they were, say, to propose a light industrial estate to provide local work..I would ALSO be very interested. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 6, 7:06*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Mostly round here, I don't give a ****. BUT when they want to stack Stansted incoming overhead at 3000 feet plus one plane every 5 minutes The noise regulations are being subverted by fraudulently falsifying data gathering & lying under oath by expert witnesses in court by a civil servant at BAA (just so you know, it is intentional). Additionally, it is used to protect BA from competition in critical routes to avoid the taxpayer (eventually) being stuck with the cost of BA failing. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
thomas-davey wrote:
On 5 Dec, 15:31, geraldthehamster wrote: I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard This is the transcript from Greg Clark's speech: http://www.communities.gov.uk/speech...pationplanning I'm interested to see how this pans out, I work in architectural practice so deal with planners every day. Hopefully they will release a bit more detail on how this will actually work. It could make life a lot easier, or a lot harder! 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 But is that not their right? to have their village the way they want it? until such time as YOU have enough support to call it YOUR village? And can be bothered to make it so? |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: Tim Streater wrote: 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". You can. It doesn't carry legal weight currently, but in time it may. The fact that it doesn't at present is the point I'm making, along with the fact that people *assume* that it does. We stood there and ripped our parish councillors apart in front of the borough and county councillors, asking them who stood to benefit..(mumble mumble) and I think they were dismayed enough to slacken the pressure, and somehow the borough council then decided on 'quite different grounds' to not support their application. Mmm, in the villages I've lived in the parish councillors were generally more likely to actually act to benefit the village (unlike the local landowner, say). Or indeed at least one of the local farmers who now is having a dozen or so windmills built on his land, against local objections including those from the parish council. Sounds like your lot were/are not so good. What you have is behind the scenes money against vocal public oppositon. Pickles is trying to legalise the vocal public bit. It aint perfect, but I reckon it may be better. Let's hope so. The real s=question is, who is to decide on what happens locally? Brussels? Whitehall? Town hall? or parish? Here we need more jobs, not more houses. they would simply be filled with people out of work on social security. But housing is more valuable than light industrial or office space, in the sticks. and can't carry as many people so it strains the infrastructure more. There has to be a *planning* reason. No there doesn't. Not in absolute terms. A thousand people saying we dont want it IS a planning reason. If it comes to that. I agree that it *ought* to be, but at present it's not. Not unless the council has money to burn. The windfarm I mentioned above is a good example. South Cambs DC turned it down, on grounds, IIRC, that the area was too nice to spoil. Goes to appeal, and the developer gets it. I was't entirely surprised as I felt the reason was a bit flimsy. But the net result is that councils are a bit stuck at the moment. well Linton has just turned theirs down as well and we are working to make it so awkward for several more that they dont even GET to application. The way it seems to be going ta the moment is teh MPs are leaning on the council, and all we have to do is to show the mass objections and the 'valid legal reasons' so the council has the get out clause they need. That is, whilst the council can't say 'we cant have this because 80% of the parish don't want it',. if 80% of the parish write in, and just one gives them the excuse, they know who is paying the piper and it ain't the developer. Well that's not true of course. There are some ugly rumours..BUT if it costs you your career to take the bribe, its a tougher call and needs a bigger bribe. And at some point market forces rule that they try somewhere cheaper instead.. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
js.b1 wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Mostly round here, I don't give a ****. BUT when they want to stack Stansted incoming overhead at 3000 feet plus one plane every 5 minutes The noise regulations are being subverted by fraudulently falsifying data gathering & lying under oath by expert witnesses in court by a civil servant at BAA (just so you know, it is intentional). I thought that was only wind farms... Not much BA traffic out of Stansted tho. Mainly Rye-and-air. Additionally, it is used to protect BA from competition in critical routes to avoid the taxpayer (eventually) being stuck with the cost of BA failing. Not sure what the taxpayers stake in BA is. Thought it was a publicly listed company. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 6, 7:32*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Not sure what the taxpayers stake in BA is. Thought it was a publicly listed company. Noise data at every BAA sites. Put another way, it is going to get a lot noisier over the next 30yrs as revenue & secondary revenue from air travel is more important than NIMBY. Whilst BA is a publicly listed company, if it were to go bust the gov't underwrites 90% pension. That is one reason it privatised BA and likewise Royal Mail which has a simply huge pension liability. The problem with BA is premium costs, premium debt, and premium pension plans - Walsh will bring it inline with competitors although hopefully better managed than T5. A long term problem is oil could as easily go 180$ as 40$. BA is essentially the modern day white-star line, which they do not want turning into a titanic. The price will be noise. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
js.b1 wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:32 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Not sure what the taxpayers stake in BA is. Thought it was a publicly listed company. Noise data at every BAA sites. Put another way, it is going to get a lot noisier over the next 30yrs as revenue & secondary revenue from air travel is more important than NIMBY. I doubt there will be the fuel at a price to sustain air travel at its present level in 30 years time. Whilst BA is a publicly listed company, if it were to go bust the gov't underwrites 90% pension. That is one reason it privatised BA and likewise Royal Mail which has a simply huge pension liability. The problem with BA is premium costs, premium debt, and premium pension plans - Walsh will bring it inline with competitors although hopefully better managed than T5. A long term problem is oil could as easily go 180$ as 40$. BA is essentially the modern day white-star line, which they do not want turning into a titanic. The price will be noise. I am afraid that it and BT will struggle along in effective insolvency for years until the bullet is bitten, and a pensiondectomy performed. The profitable bits will be sold off, and the rump with all the debt, be shut down. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 09:33:52 +0000 Tim Streater wrote :
The provision of pension schemes should be restricted BY LAW to pension companies. Everybody then has a personal pension that the employer can choose to contribute to *also*, or not - their choice. That way they have no ongoing liability. Sort of the way it is here, save that employers (including mine, Greentram Software) have to contribute 9% of salary to a fund of the employee's choice. If you have enough capital to justify the admin costs you can have a self administered fund. The employer has no liability beyond current contributions. The problem is that too much money goes out in fees - I know it was bad timing (but with the collapse of the pound v. Aussie dollar it could have been even worse) but when I moved my personal pension over here the amount was roughly equal to what I'd paid in over twenty years. -- Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On 6 Dec, 18:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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; Then they have only themselves to blame. That's just ignorant of the way people are. Every community consist of people who are gregarious, people who like to keep themselves to themselves, and people who are very busy. In a democracy each gets a vote so they can't be bulldozed or shouted down by their noisier neighbours. At least local action can vote the *******s out. If you are as we are, a country shore that has been hammered for the last 15 years by anti-rural class warriors who perceive anyone with a real job and some income as a despicable target for taxation, rule imposition and the dumping of urban trash on, then anythign is preferable. Local action will not able to vote these "community groups" out, because the groups will not be elected. 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. Precisely, as do Parish councillors. But not the local groups proposed by the government. I'd have thouht you'd have grasped that. The cliques who will take advantage of the new system will be accountable to nobody. Rubbish. I refer the honourable gentleman to the facts, above. Possibly you might want to argue that an unelected body is accountable, but you'd have to show how, and to whom it was accountable. Local referendums on their decisions won't amount to much, as most people won't be interested or bother to vote; Apathy is no excuse. If you dont care, it WILL happen. No, that's just naive. A carefully crafted local plan will include enough titbits for enough voters that the stuff the vested interests want gets nodded through. "Oo look, they want me to be able to put an extension of any size on the back of my detached house, I'll vote for that", and nobody notices that the agricultural provisions end up landing them with a chicken factory at the end of the garden. As I've said before, I'd rather have these issues discussed by elected councillors who have an obligation to respond to constituents, and can ultimately be voted out. By all means try it with Parish Councillors; however, Pickles isn't proposing to give these powers to PCs, but to self-appointed community groups. They may turn out to be the same people who sit on the Parish Council, but they won't be doing it as Parish Councillors, they'll have a free hand, and some power (I notice also from recent PC meinutes that the members of the PC are in favour of these proposals, though they haven't consulted anyone before writing to say so). Centralisation meant you could hide your greed behind government policy. Localisation means you cant. I'm all for localisation (which Conservative administrations during the 1980s did their best to stamp out), but it should be democratic localisation. In a democracy, everyone gets a vote regardless of status, wealth or temperament. Cheers Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On 6 Dec, 19:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
thomas-davey wrote: On 5 Dec, 15:31, geraldthehamster wrote: I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard This is the transcript from Greg Clark's speech: http://www.communities.gov.uk/speech...pationplanning I'm interested to see how this pans out, I work in architectural practice so deal with planners every day. *Hopefully they will release a bit more detail on how this will actually work. *It could make life a lot easier, or a lot harder! 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 But is that not their right? to have their village the way they want it? until such time as YOU have enough support to call it YOUR village? And can be bothered to make it so?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No, it's not their right, because we also beloing to wider communities, with wider commmunity rules and laws. Otherwise eventually you'll have the local bullies deciding not only that you can't extend your home or put up a wind turbine, but determining the kind of people allowed to live there - after all, what business does big government have in making race equality laws, if a local cumminity decides it doesn't want black people living there? That's where this fake localism leads. Regards Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
Pensions work fine when there is direct competition to essentially
cripple fees. The problem is the UK system is based around fees, fees & more fees. It is assets under management that count, and not rolling return. The actual return of UK pension funds is quite simply atrocious. The next problem is funds held in ISA count against benefits, so whilst it is possible to create a very globally multi-asset aggressive pension fund (or balanced as age dictates) there is little point in doing so. We need to adopt the USA system of IRA & Roth wrappers, you can only contribute 2k/yr, on one you pay tax up front & none on withdrawal, on the other you pay no tax up front but tax on withdrawal, they do not count against benefits. It was and remains the best system in the world. People can own individual stocks to commodities to funds. The only downside is people do occasionally end up with their entire portfolio in a single employer company stock - the classic being PG (Proctor & Gamble), which turned out to be a gamble one day when it went 115-105$ with large block sales as someone knew something, then 105$ to 50$ overnight. Those with 500k$ in the fund got a rather big pension hair-cut close to retirement. Sadly the worst they could then do is sell (which some did), just as Joseph Nelson (Chester) did in 1987 right at the bottom to thus grossly underperform the market and future bull market to boot. The existing pension system is welfare for the city, nothing more, nothing less. We must adopt a Roth/IRA style system - but make it pay tax up front and make it not count against benefits, you could have a massive injection of tax to resolve a lot of problems in the short-medium term. That of course really empowers people, something the **** that are all parties will never do, the philosophy from the nutters of RAND, Princeton & Cambridge is a dependency culture which until broken will break the western economies. All countries are defaulting on debt, just some are doing it by sky high real inflation. Cash is earning 6.5% less than inflation, the average pension is underperforming likewise to fund a BMW lifestyle for their sellers. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
js.b1 wrote:
Pensions work fine when there is direct competition to essentially cripple fees. Was this intended for somewhere else? Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
geraldthehamster wrote:
On 6 Dec, 18:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote: 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; Then they have only themselves to blame. That's just ignorant of the way people are. Every community consist of people who are gregarious, people who like to keep themselves to themselves, and people who are very busy. In a democracy each gets a vote so they can't be bulldozed or shouted down by their noisier neighbours. At least local action can vote the *******s out. If you are as we are, a country shore that has been hammered for the last 15 years by anti-rural class warriors who perceive anyone with a real job and some income as a despicable target for taxation, rule imposition and the dumping of urban trash on, then anythign is preferable. Local action will not able to vote these "community groups" out, because the groups will not be elected. 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. Precisely, as do Parish councillors. But not the local groups proposed by the government. I'd have thouht you'd have grasped that. The cliques who will take advantage of the new system will be accountable to nobody. Rubbish. I refer the honourable gentleman to the facts, above. Possibly you might want to argue that an unelected body is accountable, but you'd have to show how, and to whom it was accountable. Local referendums on their decisions won't amount to much, as most people won't be interested or bother to vote; Apathy is no excuse. If you dont care, it WILL happen. No, that's just naive. A carefully crafted local plan will include enough titbits for enough voters that the stuff the vested interests want gets nodded through. "Oo look, they want me to be able to put an extension of any size on the back of my detached house, I'll vote for that", and nobody notices that the agricultural provisions end up landing them with a chicken factory at the end of the garden. As I've said before, I'd rather have these issues discussed by elected councillors who have an obligation to respond to constituents, and can ultimately be voted out. By all means try it with Parish Councillors; however, Pickles isn't proposing to give these powers to PCs, but to self-appointed community groups. They may turn out to be the same people who sit on the Parish Council, but they won't be doing it as Parish Councillors, they'll have a free hand, and some power (I notice also from recent PC meinutes that the members of the PC are in favour of these proposals, though they haven't consulted anyone before writing to say so). Centralisation meant you could hide your greed behind government policy. Localisation means you cant. I'm all for localisation (which Conservative administrations during the 1980s did their best to stamp out), but it should be democratic localisation. In a democracy, everyone gets a vote regardless of status, wealth or temperament. then get off yer ass and make it happen that way. The tories have said 'run yor own communities' Call the bluff. Try. Don't just whinge about how it will be the same as the old. If it turns out that way, complain to MP etc. We did, and things are happening. Its hard work, of course. Cheers Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
geraldthehamster wrote:
On 6 Dec, 19:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote: thomas-davey wrote: On 5 Dec, 15:31, geraldthehamster wrote: I caught something on the radio today about a proposal from the government further to relax planning requirements for householders. I didn't catch the detail but heard something about "major" alterations to domestic property no longer needing planning permission. Does anyone know anything about this? I can't immediately find anything on the web. Cheers Richard This is the transcript from Greg Clark's speech: http://www.communities.gov.uk/speech...pationplanning I'm interested to see how this pans out, I work in architectural practice so deal with planners every day. Hopefully they will release a bit more detail on how this will actually work. It could make life a lot easier, or a lot harder! 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 But is that not their right? to have their village the way they want it? until such time as YOU have enough support to call it YOUR village? And can be bothered to make it so?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No, it's not their right, because we also beloing to wider communities, with wider commmunity rules and laws. Otherwise eventually you'll have the local bullies deciding not only that you can't extend your home or put up a wind turbine, but determining the kind of people allowed to live there - after all, what business does big government have in making race equality laws, if a local cumminity decides it doesn't want black people living there? That's where this fake localism leads. Oddly, I believe its peoples' right to try to do even that. I've been across the USA. certain places you don't even want to have long hair. You certainly wouldn't want to be gay. If that's the way they want it that's fine. The you go to san franscisco, you don't want to go there unless you ARE gay. in short localism means that whilst overall country policy overrides local issues, you should as much as possible keep out as a government. Issues of race etc are national issues, and although it goes against te grain, that's an area that C Gov probably needs to keep sane. But where local industry goes and the restrictions on it are no business of C gov unless its part some nationally relevant issue. So motorways get built across peoples land. BUT they should receive more than fair recompense. Regards Richard |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
John Rumm wrote:
On 06/12/2010 09:39, geraldthehamster wrote: On 5 Dec, 22:07, Tim wrote: In article , wrote: On 5 Dec, 17:29, The Natural wrote: 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. 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. 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? -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689- Hide quoted text - - Show 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 its done by an elected body, then you have to accept that in a democratic system your voice may not be heard if your view is in the minority. However with a system as suggested here, you could at least join the local "neighbourhood" and inject your own input. 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. Much will hinge on who they are accountable to, and what checks and controls are in place. The key is to make them all accountable to the electorate, not to C gov. |
Proposed changes to permitted development?
On Dec 7, 11:53*am, Chris J Dixon wrote:
js.b1 wrote: Pensions work fine when there is direct competition to essentially cripple fees. Was this intended for somewhere else? No it was in response to BA, BT, Royal Mail etc all struggling with pension costs. They could always get Obama to take them over and tear up the bond holders rights etc as happened with Government Motors. Big government does not work, even worse it is too expensive, too easily manipulated by vested interests. The civil service top-levels need simply deleting, thinning down. Property & Estate Managers elevated under Nulabour to far above 100k + bonus + expenses + pension + 911 or S6; public sector trades pay for security - not the economy into a toilet. BT in particular still believes it is the last vestige of the empire with hereditary birthright. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter