New homes to get 'automatic' permission in England planning shake-up

[ChocoTrio]

Any views on this news story? Headline: New homes to get 'automatic' permission in England planning shake-up

It's apparently related to Boris' "Build, Build, Build" strategy. The opinion is that building will make way for more jobs etc. Really interesting. I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. However, I question how wise this move really is?

If we are heading for a recession, then surely your general population need to be able to afford any new housing as part of the "build, build, build" strategy?

Also, I think it would be a shame to lose precious green spaces, agricultural lands and the like; that's important for sustaining the population too. Then again, I get the issue about the planning red-tape atm. Tricky one really.

Read the article. Isn't it just that once land has been designated as suitable for development in the local plan it doesn't also require opening permission?

@MinesAPintOfTea sorry looks like I was reading the article half-asleep!

@MinesAPintOfTea

Hmm... I re-read the article now I'm a bit more awake and some coffee.

I'm still unsure tbh. The cynic in me thinks it's a political move.

Quote from article...
"Mr Jenrick's announcement comes a few weeks after he came under fire for his decision to grant planning permission for a £1bn property scheme in east London just before changes to local planning rules and two weeks prior to the developer donating £12,000 to the Conservatives.
The secretary of state denied any link between the events, but accepted that his decision to approve the development was unlawful."

There's still the question of how people are expected to buy this new houses during a recession?

Building is all well and good so long as there are people who can afford to buy the houses/flats.

It's not really planning that holds up the build, there's a bundle of approved schemes that just haven't been built yet. I also think this is more about developing brown field sites and getting bigger developments pushed through despite local residents objections...

Very convenient for them as they have already taken a huge amount of green belt land out of green belt status.

It worries me. I live in south east. Development here pushed towards cheaper areas which were once small market towns and surrounding villages and have had 1000s of new homes built (more planned) in last 10 years. Has completely changed the character of the area and loss of green space, wildlife, increase in pollution (no major infrastructure has been improved). Developers put in for 400 houses and once that is approved, they change plans to double that. Promises of green spaces and play parks either never come to fruition or they are massively scaled backwards once it comes to it. Houses are still unaffordable for many local people as this is the cheaper area to live in - where working class people have traditionally lived - but people who are priced out of London and Brighton move here and push prices up. Huge issues with drainage in new builds as sewer systems built for a small town haven't been increased and now overflow (raw sewage in some areas on the roads) as well as a new development having been fined £££ for pumping raw sewage from one of their holding pools straight into streams running alongside a country bike and pathway in the area - they can afford the fines though, so hardly matters to them I'd they still make a profit. It is very sad, but development will always be given preference here as land is cheaper and the rich counsellors (and MP) live in the 'nicer' greener areas - and they wouldn't want that spoiled now would they!

@Loofah01 "It's not really planning that holds up the build, there's a bundle of approved schemes that just haven't been built yet."

Do you mean it's cost? In which case, wouldn't that be an even greater challenge during a recession?

"I also think this is more about developing brown field sites and getting bigger developments pushed through despite local residents objections..."

Local residents who get name-called NIMBYS? An acquaintance, who is a surveyor, moaned about the locals opposing about a new build on some agricultural land. Previously it was thought to be greenbelt, but its status must have changed or the farmer discovered actually it's not. Anyway, the irony is that very family friend admitted that he personally would not want to have a new build estate near where he lived because he believed it would devalue his home... and yet he couldn't empathise with local residents opposing development plans near their home. Double standards and vested interests imo!

@Yellowbutterfly1
"Very convenient for them as they have already taken a huge amount of green belt land out of green belt status."

They've got to manage it carefully though. We are only on a small island really. So, farm land is important and precious; it's already at a premium. Especially while we're going it alone after Brexit.

It's not like Britain has the benefit of gaining resources from its colonies anymore... those days have long gone.

Most planning departments are already told to favour development. Relaxing planning laws is a mistake in my view. We don't have a housing shortage. We have a housing distribution problem (ownership and proximity to employment).

@Rollercoaster1920 I agree.

There are a lot of old building that can be re-developed, rather than developing on fresh land.

It seems like grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural lands should be safe. People forget that whilst we need housing, we also need to eat too.

[quote ChocoTrio]@Loofah01 "It's not really planning that holds up the build, there's a bundle of approved schemes that just haven't been built yet."

Do you mean it's cost? In which case, wouldn't that be an even greater challenge during a recession?

"I also think this is more about developing brown field sites and getting bigger developments pushed through despite local residents objections..."

Local residents who get name-called NIMBYS? An acquaintance, who is a surveyor, moaned about the locals opposing about a new build on some agricultural land. Previously it was thought to be greenbelt, but its status must have changed or the farmer discovered actually it's not. Anyway, the irony is that very family friend admitted that he personally would not want to have a new build estate near where he lived because he believed it would devalue his home... and yet he couldn't empathise with local residents opposing development plans near their home. Double standards and vested interests imo![/quote]
Cost is one thing but realy it's more capacity - not enough large building companies to build at a rate that the targets demand.

Definitely the NIMBYS! Some will irrationally oppose any development of any sort. Don't know why but there it is. It's more the larger housing developments though that always get delayed due to challenges from local opposition. No-one, myself included, wants the green fields near them removed and houses plonked on top but the reality is the influx of people and the growth of the population requires more dwellings so where to put them?
Where I am, the town have busted the bank and decided to go up instead of out; it means more green belt is saved (by no means all) and the quantity of dwellings can meet targets. Guess what - people don;t like that either! You cannot please anyone when it comes to big developments and I think that this change is aimed squarely at pushing the big movers forward.

@Loofah01

I can empathise with the NIMBYS - they're just trying to protect their home and the home they thought they bought. Like, if you bought a house for the countryside and then that countryside turned into a building site a few years later, then you'd understandably feel miffed and deceived - because that's not what you signed up for.

[quote ChocoTrio]@Loofah01

I can empathise with the NIMBYS - they're just trying to protect their home and the home they thought they bought. Like, if you bought a house for the countryside and then that countryside turned into a building site a few years later, then you'd understandably feel miffed and deceived - because that's not what you signed up for.[/quote]
Yes, to a point. It's unlikely that a development would be proposed or approved in the middle of nowhere in rural countryside. But if you're right on the edge of a village for example then yes I'd be miffed too!

And this is what is happening to me, instead of the beautiful green belt field behind the home I worked so hard to buy I am now faced with 4 houses 20 meters from the rear of my home looking directly into my children’s bedrooms, living room, garden etc

[quote ChocoTrio]@Loofah01

I can empathise with the NIMBYS - they're just trying to protect their home and the home they thought they bought. Like, if you bought a house for the countryside and then that countryside turned into a building site a few years later, then you'd understandably feel miffed and deceived - because that's not what you signed up for.[/quote]
Urban spread happens. Where I live was originally a little vilage, but now it's an inner location in a large city.

It has been happening for hundreds of years until relatively recently, when people turned into NIMBYs.

I laugh when people object to be overlooked. A great many of us can't overvoid it! That is probably why net curtains were invented. I know it is a pet hate of a lot of mumsnetters, but @Yellowbutterfly1, if you don't want the newbuild residents looking into your children's bedrooms, etc, get yourself down to Dunelm or wherever and get some. 😊

@SadSoVerySad
"I laugh when people object to be overlooked. A great many of us can't overvoid it! That is probably why net curtains were invented."

I understand what you mean - on my new build development most homes are overlooked.

The NIMBYS objection seems to be different because it's a change to the home they originally bought. So, in @Yellowbutterfly1's case they bought a home that was not overlooked and paid the associated price - it was never part of that deal to be overlooked, otherwise they may have bought somewhere else. I get it - it's changing the deal and that can feel unfair.

Net curtains are fine - but they impact lighting of a home imo. I think they were invented for the terrace houses without front gardens tbh.

It's not just overlooking though is it? It's noise from more people in close proximity.