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.