Labour's new planning strategy

[mjc55]

It's strange reading this thread, it both chimes and doesn't with my experience.  That maybe the difference between applications for extensions and those for new builds.  It makes me think that maybe these two processes could/should be separated!  After all they are very different sides of the same coin.

 

I spent 10 years or so working as an AT in Wiltshire putting in lots of applications for extensions to houses, I never once had an application rejected and can't remember many taking more than the statutory 8 weeks to go through the process.  I am now going through the application process to build a new house for ourselves, in Dorset, and it is a world away from my previous experience with planning departments.  It has taken weeks longer than the 8 it should, the PO hadn't even looked at the application until we sent a strong worded email to his supervisor, and once this had been done he passed the application.

 

As regards corruption in the planning process, I am sure it goes on, as it does in all walks of life, can't see that there is much that can be done about this though.

[Pocster]

35 minutes ago, mjc55 said:

As regards corruption in the planning process, I am sure it goes on, as it does in all walks of life, can't see that there is much that can be done about this though

My final architect told me it’s 50% planning and 50% ‘politics ‘ . It’s a game I think . Initially with your 1st application you are naive and think it’s all followed to the letter . Once you suss it ain’t then you start to play the game also . It’s not especially difficult in my experience to ‘trick’ the lpa into a corner where they have no choice but to support your application officially; yet behind the scenes they don’t .

[Alan Ambrose]

I’m not done yet, but have the same impression that I have to back the LPA into such a tight corner that they have no alternative. They’re still not acting like an organisation that is going to be influenced by what a mere appeals inspector has already put on paper or anything their own employees have said in the past.

[miike]

Does anyone remember 2-3 years ago the Tories had a similar plan to increase building and cut red tape - and then they immediately lost some local elections in response to the plans so they completely backed down on them? And they're the party that gets a substantial % of their donations from house builders. 

 

I can't see a different pattern playing out with Labour as at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is votes and c80% people who are 65+ vote vs just over 50% of people under 34. And nothing unites the older demographic of the UK like opposing new homes does.  

[SteamyTea]

I forgot to put any CDs in my car so had to suffer listening to Radio 4 all day (actually my station of choice).

Today is Any Question/Answers.

 

So the Tory MP Jeremy Wright and the Labour MP Chris Bryant (won't bother with the other MP on the show as she was irrelevant to this part) were bickering over the targets for Leicester and Warwick.

Apparently Warwick is going to have to build twice the number of homes, Leicester half.

So I thought I would look at the actual figures.

Warwick is going from 653 to 1086, 65% increase.

Leicester is going from 2435 to 1690 -31%.

 

Now if both these MPs had bothered to do their homework, they could have told the truth.

Warwick, in the 2021 census had a population of 148,500, Leicester 559,017 (2021).

So Warwick is 3.7 times smaller.

The two places are not comparable in the slightest.

But why should facts get in the way of politicians bitching at each other.

[nod]

Scooby Doo is less confused than Sir Kier 

[Pocster]

58 minutes ago, nod said:

Scooby Doo is less confused than Sir Kier 

And scooby gets to do Daphne 

[nod]

1 minute ago, Pocster said:

And scooby gets to do Daphne 

No Shaggy for Sir Kier 

[Pocster]

2 minutes ago, nod said:

No Shaggy for Sir Kier 

True . He gets Velma ( I aways thought she was called Thelma - so I’m a bit gutted now ) 

[Russell griffiths]

How about 

we don’t actually need more houses, we need less people. 

[Pocster]

53 minutes ago, Russell griffiths said:

How about 

we don’t actually need more houses, we need less people. 

Better solution . But killing people is frowned upon .

[Bancroft]

Labour building 1.5m houses is all smoke and mirrors.

 

They're not actually building any.

 

They're hoping that private companies build them so that they can take the credit.  If the private companies don't hit the targets then Labour can blame them.

 

Welcome to politics.

 

As for local authorities.  They put a pre-commencement condition on our build for the landscaping.  I queried why pre-commencement when landscaping has to be left until the house is built.  No response.

 

They then rejected our plan.

 

When I asked them to state specifically in writing why it was rejected they then came back and said 'on further review we could not raise any objection to the landscape plan you have submitted as it meets all requirements of the condition'.

 

 

[ProDave]

2 minutes ago, Bancroft said:

As for local authorities.  They put a pre-commencement condition on our build for the landscaping.  I queried why pre-commencement when landscaping has to be left until the house is built.  No response.

 

They then rejected our plan.

 

When I asked them to state specifically in writing why it was rejected they then came back and said 'on further review we could not raise any objection to the landscape plan you have submitted as it meets all requirements of the condition'.

The planning system NEEDS to be streamlined to scrap all these reports about newts and bats, complicated and unecessary conditions etc.  ALL they do is result in exactly the same building being built, but at extra cost and time to the applicant and extra work for the planners.  All at a time when the planning system needs streamlining to make it quicker and more efficient and pass more planning applications quicker.

[Alan Ambrose]

Yeah +100

 

 

 

[flanagaj]

5 hours ago, ProDave said:

The planning system NEEDS to be streamlined to scrap all these reports about newts and bats, complicated and unecessary conditions etc.  ALL they do is result in exactly the same building being built, but at extra cost and time to the applicant and extra work for the planners.  All at a time when the planning system needs streamlining to make it quicker and more efficient and pass more planning applications quicker.

But said reports keep people employed.