Fears of home extension 'free-for-all'

[dipsydoodle]

Fears of home extension 'free-for-all' as owners told they can extend houses by up to 30ft without planning permission

Homeowners are to be allowed to build extensions or conservatories of up to almost 30 feet without needing planning permission, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will announce today.

Under the first stage of proposals to sweep away planning rules and bureaucracy, shops, offices and industrial units will also be allowed to expand with no need to ask their local authority.

The move is designed to encourage conservatories, loft extensions or garage conversions, and support businesses which want to grow or diversify.

However, it will also mean residents no longer have a right to challenge thousands of construction schemes on neighbouring properties, even if they believe it will have an adverse impact on them.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198827/Home-extensions-free-planning-reforms-allow-building-work-30ft.html#ixzz25g8WwOyi

David Cameron to unveil year-long relaxation of planning laws.

David Cameron is to announce an emergency year-long free-for-all in house extensions, allowing homeowners to build up to eight metres into their gardens without council planning permission.

The coalition, currently facing the threat of two years of minimal growth likely to shred its spending and deficit reduction plans, is desperately casting around for shock measures to boost growth, and will on Thursday present a raft of proposals relaxing planning laws and the burdens on housebuilders.

>

The latest proposals will double the amount of space homeowners and businesses can build, but restrictions will still apply in conservation areas. The controversial idea to temporarily remove planning permission requirements is also expected to apply to lofts and garages and will be subject to a brief month-long consultation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/06/david-cameron-planning-laws-growth-plan

That'll keep the building inspectors busy. The subject refers to planning permission : not building regulations under which plans still need to be approved by councils.

[mwooldri]

1. I guess there's going to be a lot of local authorities...

... declaring more and more areas as "conservation areas". Oh, and listing more buildings.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Conservation areas are conservation areas

and unlilkely to increase. On the subject of listed building they are becoming less and less : not more and more. I assume you know what Grade 1 and 2 listings are.

[fedsron2us]

3. The planning rules for extension had already been relaxed before this announcement

but we have not seen the orgy of extensions you might expect. Bigger houses mean bigger heating costs and higher council tax as it will almost certainly result in your property being revalued. In addition most people have to borrow money to extend their properties as they don't have the cash in hand to pay for it and that usually comes from equity draw down on the existing home. Given the state of the banks balance sheet and the fragile nature of the housing market that money is simply not there. the Tories, like Labour and the Liberals, really don't have an economic or industrial strategy apart from trying to reinflate the credit and housing bubbles. All these gyrations in planning policy (the last change was only 6 months ago) are simply a sign of an government and a political system that is completely bankrupt of ideas. All they can offer is endless tinkering and regulatory initiatives to try and kick a moribund property market back to life. BTW most people do not realise that the big construction companies already have over development plots for over 400,000 houses on their books, many with existing planning permission. The reason they have not been built is because there are not the people with the money to buy them at the price the builders want. The government could release this back log by simply entering the market and building houses for rent itself but we are not likely to see such an initiative from the Tories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/9522902/House-builders-sitting-on-400000-undeveloped-plots-of-land-with-planning-permission.html

[enlightenment]

4. So, this will apply to Grade I and II listed structures?

That's a shame. Not saying that all of them need protection, but plopping a modern conservatory on the back end of a Georgian should be a crime . . .

[dipsydoodle]

5. Doubt it

Grade One 1 is the whole shebang - you may even be forced to use lead original paints. Grade 11 is external overall appearance . I suppose a conservatory for example may be viewed in context with the extent to which it is visible outside the property.

I know for a fact that a swimming pool and gym were planned at the rear of this one which initially went on the market for c. £21 million and is currently owned by the banks. Was listed as Grade 11 back in the fifties.



I think its a Robert Adams job. It overlooks Barnes across the river from the towpath on the Hammersmith Side - few houses up from the bridge. The rear is completely out of sight.

[enlightenment]

6. Good to know.

Though there is still plenty of nonsense that can occur to grade II structures without sufficient oversight.

I lean toward conservation of appearance, rather than preservation, so I'm not opposed to additions that are in the spirit of the original - even if they are visible to the public. I do object to the kind of monstrosity that was featured in that DM article the other day. It's hideous on its face, for one; but even if it weren't, modernist architecture shoved in the middle of a traditional block is really violating the spirit of the conservation approach and often - as in this case - is a rape of the esthetic. I don't care if the Royal Academy thought it was a nifty design - it looks like an oversized refuse bin.


Here's the DM article, in case you're wiser than I and avoid reading trash . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199747/Coming-street-near-After-Coalition-relaxes-planning-laws-alien-spaceship-houses-extensions-built-road.html

[dipsydoodle]

7. Saw that and nearly threw up

How the fuck they got away with that monstrosity in Highgate completely defeats me.

[enlightenment]

8. That was my question, too.

Who did they pay off on the planning council?

And what an absolute tool the architect/owner is . . . if I had to live next door to that I'd be tempted to burn my own home down in an attempt to take that thing along with it.

[dipsydoodle]

10. Not sure which council was involved.

Highgate is split between Camden and Haringey. I'm guessing its more likely to be Haringey as I couldn't see that stunt being pulled on the other part which adjoins Hampstead. I'm inclined to think there was bung money involved too.

I'm reminded of I came across an architect by accident on a sunny Sunday back in the late sixties, friend of a friend , and he lived on North Hill, Highgate which would now be the Camden part. His house had been restored and furnished in the best possible taste. We sat in the garden. Its one thing splitting a bottle of wine into 3 large glasses - its another splitting a bottle of Gordons that way which is what he did for 3 of us.

[enlightenment]

11. UfDah!

That explains a lot about some architects . . .

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. 'Alien spaceship' is paying it an undeserved compliment

As you say, a refuse bin, or my thought was an old battleship-grey hulk of a boat.