How many of you would make changes to your yard / land etc etc if planning was easier

[BBH]

Just saw a programme last night called ' Planners' and thought it was really interesting to watch but what surprised me was that the planners themselves seemed really good and very amicable. I sometimes think they are seen as people best avoided which probably comes from nosy neighbours threatening to report people for things they don't like. One of them said ' we aren't the garden police ' and another said in ' the old days we had to think of a good reason to agree it and now we have to think of a good reason not to agree it'. Times are changing.

Its not just big commercial business but even down to local people wanting a field shelter or extra stabling, farmers who want to turn unused barns into new business be it coffee shops or florists. I was reading that many many people in their 50's for example are having to become self employed as they aren't being successful in the employment market and need to find small premises. Many country people have had to consider diversifying to keep a livelihood and a roof over their heads, they need support to do this.

But they were working with a group of people who looked liked they'd stepped off the bus from Tesco's. They were apparently local councilors but it didn't seem any of them had any relevant knowledge, qualifications, awareness etc on which to come to decisions and provide sound reasoning.

Came away wondering if involving these people really is the best way to get things moving in this country, creating growth, businesses and jobs. Many of them seemed to have a vested interested in NIMBYism.

I may be doing local councilors a huge disservice but based on the motley crue last night I'm not sure. I agree with some constraints to protect rural England but surely we have to feel confident that the people making decisions that can greatly effect individuals future ie jobs and housing should be really be a bit more savvy.

Times are changing and you cannot having planning decisions stuck in the dark ages. We have huge numbers of people arriving and being born here and to sustain everyone we need to expand. Some neighbour objecting to ' noise or smell' doesn't override the bigger need for growth.
Any thoughts.

 

[Honey08]

I detest our local planners. They truly are a bunch of idiots, qualifications or not. It really seems to depend on how much money you have, and there are a lot of rumours about back handers. People who get planning around here tend to be developpers building new houses in the villages, which are gradually turning into new towns, or newcomers with money who buy and extend old farmhouses á la Grand designs - lots of metal girders and glass added onto 300 year old stone buildings, while those who have not much money and have lived here all their lives can't even get permission to rebuild an existing derrelict stone farmhouse on the land they have owned for years.

I don't want the greenbelt built over, I don't want where I live spoiling, I love it, but there is not sense at our local town hall.

 

[glamourpuss]

I have had no issue with our planners. Everything we've wanted to do we've always had an informal meeting with the planning officer first just to check what we were asking wasn't too outlandish.

 

[Honey08]

I have had no issue with our planners. Everything we've wanted to do we've always had an informal meeting with the planning officer first just to check what we were asking wasn't too outlandish.

We've done that with ours, then put in an application in the style they suggested, and still had it rejected!

 

[BBH]

Honey.

I think you hit the nail on the head in that councils aren't consistent in their decisions. Its very frustrating to have something declined that would be agreed in a different area.

There must be an awful lot of back handers and decisions behind the scenes as some planning decisions have been agreed for some people in my area that haven't been agreed for others.

What I find so frustrating is that huge blots on the landscape are agreed yet local country workers are having to hide in substandard ' barn conversion or mobile home accommodation under the radar.

 

[JillA]

Our local planning authority used to be known throughout the country as one of the most difficult. They had a bad report from the Audit Commission and some left, but according to a developer I was speaking to recently, they are not much better now. The frustrating thing is, step over the border into Wales and people are doing stuff they wouldn't dream of approving here.
Despite all the noise about local decisions though, their hands are tied to some extent by government policy. I have lost count of the people who say to me how good it would be to have a small house on my 13 acres, how it would fit in fine because it is in a hamlet of 12 other houses, including some local authority ones, but I have spent time and money trying to get pp and it falls at the first hurdle of national policy. Despite the other surrounding houses it is classed as open countryside in planning terms as it is neither in a town or one of the larger villages which are approved for development. Yet we have a housing shortage in this country and they are cramming houses cheek by jowl in those larger villages, ruining them completely.
Sorry, rant over - I would love a planning person to comment.

 

[BBH]

I think one of the things they consider re housing according to last night was the proximity to other amenities without using a car. Ie is the high street, Dr's, schooling reachable without a car. He mentioned there's no point putting housing in places that are isolated so that when fuel hits £5 a litre no-one can afford to get anywhere.

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

It is worth looking at whether your local council has recently adopted a new local plan: some of these have significant changes to attitude to new houses in rural areas. ESP if there is some structure there already. So in some cases previously rejected apps may now be passed. However it will still be hard to get pp for a new house in the middle of a green field site.

I do sometimes think re horses that the planners are locked into a problem- because horsey structures are considered messy they won't give pp which mean people still then have to build them but they are messier - temporary undersized structures with stuff covered in tatty tarps outside and straw blowing around and knee deep mud Cos they don't want groundworks. Whereas if they gave pp for a decent stable block barn none of that would've happened.

In some areas tho this is partly driven by the desire/ need to avoid creating ability of creating these buildings as they quickly find travellers creating a massive 'stable block' that rapidly acquires leaded lights and occupied as a house and these are often in flood plains/ unsuitable locations.

I don't think local plan changes will help much re stables but I do think it is something BHS could be talking to the govt about a different approach since the stables are still going on the land in all cases just not smart and well built permanent ones but temp/ tattier facilities

 

[Adopter]

Really interesting topic, I watched the programme as well and was interested that the Chester planning officer said today they have to have reasons to refuse rather than as it used to be reasons to agree.

In respect of local elected council members, we get the people we elect. Turn out at local election is often very poor, so unless local communities start to care about local elections and who is representing them things will not change.

I have contacted my local elected council member on a number of occassions and as she is a local country person always had a positive result. Your local councillor can ask questions for you and get answers that as a member of the public you struggle to get.

 

[Fransurrey]

I detest our local planners. They truly are a bunch of idiots, qualifications or not. It really seems to depend on how much money you have, and there are a lot of rumours about back handers. People who get planning around here tend to be developpers building new houses in the villages, which are gradually turning into new towns, or newcomers with money who buy and extend old farmhouses á la Grand designs - lots of metal girders and glass added onto 300 year old stone buildings, while those who have not much money and have lived here all their lives can't even get permission to rebuild an existing derrelict stone farmhouse on the land they have owned for years.

I don't want the greenbelt built over, I don't want where I live spoiling, I love it, but there is not sense at our local town hall.

Completely agree. My village is under siege from no less than 3 major applications. Over the road from me a local developer wants to build 44 houses on a 2 acre green belt field. He is one of those morons who moved into the area and built an ivory tower on the hill behind my house, complete with a million lights. It's like bloody Hogwarts. Yet when my stable was replaced (it was delapidated and falling down), the local council wouldn't let my landlady put a same size stable on the same plot, despite the previous one having been there for about 30 years. The stone foundations are still there in the ground, now.

 

[carthorse]

I would love to build a house at my field and stables but although I pay council rates on the 5 stables I have no chance. Travellers half a mile down the road have been living on their land for two years and the council dont seem to be able to move them. I bet they get a house there in the end

 

[Polos Mum]

Lack of consistency must be addressed, I put in basic drawings (by me!) and flew through the process for a 7 stable, feed room and hay/ tractor store in the middle of a bare field then a year later a school - their attitude was build what you like in what you like - only stipulation was private use.

My friends 6 miles down the road but in another local council area had a nightmare, limited number of stables related to land size, only wood (no block build), no large overhang, this size that distance from their house etc. etc. etc. absolute madness !!

We'd love to think of some ways to earn a basic living from our land (petting zoo, BMX track, breeding rare breeds etc.) but the thought of planning and insurance does really put us off, so instead my OH just doesn't earn a living!

 

[BBH]

I think its one of the problems in that 'normal' people don't think planners are ever on their side and those with big pockets get whatever they want.

There is a family of 3 in my road in a mobile home and they aren't allowed to build a 2 bed cottage yet Mr Farmer up the road is allowed a mahoosive metal warehouse that can be seen for miles around. Whats the biggest blot on the landscape then ?

The number of farmers around here who hive off land into 2 acre plots, obtain planning for 7 bed houses and then sell to highest bidder ???? What happened to the cry for affordable housing.
And again normal people with 2 + acres would find it nigh on impossible to get planning.

Its all very imbalanced and my point is that they need to start forward thinking and relax some of the constraints. I don't mean so that any old eyesore can be built but things like change of use for existing buildings where there is no real detriment to neighbours / landscape. You could get loads of little cottage industries going all supplying goods / services / employment etc etc.

 

[martlin]

There is a family of 3 in my road in a mobile home and they aren't allowed to build a 2 bed cottage yet Mr Farmer up the road is allowed a mahoosive metal warehouse that can be seen for miles around. Whats the biggest blot on the landscape then ?

Thing is, Mr Farmer most probably doesn't need planning permission for his mahoosive warehouse... well, not so mahoosive, but anything under a certain size (about 80'x40' in practice) only requires mr Farmer to notify the council, not seek permission, the council has 28 days to request changes to the design etc and that's that.

 

[Polos Mum]

Their logic is very odd, after they let me build a 26m by 12m concrete block barn in the middle of an empty green field I asked about building a house (our house is right on a main road so one at the other end of the field would be much nicer) their answer genuinely was "the stables are fine as horses have to live in the countryside, people should live in sustainable areas (defined as on a bus route, walking distance to a post office) so a house has no chance" it was nothing to do with visual impact / eye sore all to do with forcing people to live in towns.

 

[amandap]

I've always found planners very reasonable and getting them out to talk things though is a good idea. Do your research first though to get an idea if what you want and where you want it is actually a possibility.

We need new housing and it has got to go somewhere. Keeping it within or near existing housing has to be the best way in the majority of cases. I do think schemes to update 'lost'/boarded up housing should be more widely used.

Allowing building on flood planes etc. is just plain irresponsible imho.

 

[BBH]

Where are the extra Bulgarians and Romanians going to live when they come next year ?

If the media is correct there are 000's on their way and we already have a homeless problem.

I worry we'll find them living under bushes and feeding off our wildlife.

 

[BBH]

Thing is, Mr Farmer most probably doesn't need planning permission for his mahoosive warehouse... well, not so mahoosive, but anything under a certain size (about 80'x40' in practice) only requires mr Farmer to notify the council, not seek permission, the council has 28 days to request changes to the design etc and that's that.

Yes the warehouse is a lot bigger. The planners have tried to evict the mobile home family many times but they work horses on the land and he is a groundsman and they told the planners they looked after an elderly aunt and if they were evicted they ( the council ) would have to house her so they left them alone. Won't grant residency but left them alone.