Tuesday, November 13, 2012

How to Plan an Event in a Brewery - NOT

If you are wondering where Ron Jeffries got the idea for his 21st century Fable publsihed earlier on this blog then look no further than this letter published in the Ilford Recorder on 13th September 2012.


Now I thought that the proposal to relax permitted development rights had been kicked into the long grass with a rebellion of local Conservative councils reuniting the government with some semblance of its lost sanity. But no, the technical consultation (dated November 2012) from Eric’s Department for Communities and Local Government is going ahead. What a pickle we seem to be in?

I was alerted to this by a blog post from Jonathan Evens, who is Chair of the Seven Kings & Newbury Park Resident's Association as well as a Vicar, where he publishes his letter to both Mike Gapes and Lee Scott MPs on this very subject. We also understand that Ron Jeffries will be exercising his “special edition Victor Meldrew pen” to follow suit after the Annual General Meeting of the Aldborough Hatch Defence Association later this month.

These proposals are supposed to be targetted at boosting a stagnant economy (which is in that state due to the policies of the present and previous governments) but the only people who have any money at present are the very rich who have had a tax cut and already live in huge mansions, whereas the rest of us are having our incomes and pensions eroded in real terms and not least those who might wish to build on are having their child benefit chopped off at the knees. So it probably won’t amount to much anyway.

However, some quarters are expecting a U-Turn.

There is also a principle at stake here: Permitted development rights should not outweigh legitimate objection rights.

19 comments:

  1. And there is a Motion on this very subject being put to Redbridge Full Council tomorrow evening 15th November - Click!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Council?! Well - when it comes to events in breweries......

      Delete
  2. Nick Hayes (Fullwell Ward)2:07 pm, November 14, 2012

    If introduced this would permit oppressive and unneighbourly developments and would prompt a vast number of wholly understandable enforcement complaints which councils would be powerless to deal with.

    The idea of a three year temporary change is unrealistic if not unworkable and will create a legal and administrative minefield.

    The idea that it will prompt an upsurge in building seems unrealistic - the limiting factor there is largely the availability of bank finance (mostly mortgages but not just). That is best addressed through schemes such as 'Funding for Lending' rather than subcontracting the planning system to the HM Treasury Press Office.

    Should the government press ahead then as the law stands now there are things the council could do to disapply the proposed changes. Hopefully the proposals will be dropped after consultation so it will not come to that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Nick says, we are hopeful that the LibDem motion criticising the proposed changes to planning regulations is carried tomorrow and that, faced with growing protest from councils and residents regardless of party affiliation, the government decides not to proceed with the changes.

    Ian

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nick Hayes (Fullwell Ward)1:13 am, November 15, 2012

    This is not a party issue. Cllrs Bert Jones (Lab), Alex Wilson (Con) and I (Con) all raised this issue at the last full council meeting several weeks ago.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Victor Meldrew? Me? Ron Jeffries! "I don't believe it!"
    But yes, I will be inviting the Aldborough Hatch Defence Association lads and lasses to join with Jonathan Evens in making very clear to Government that we do not want a planning free-for-all. It is bad enough now - where retrospective planning applications are encouraged so that ilegal work carried out when a planning application was ignored are almost invariably granted - and appear to be encouraged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry about it Ron - Victor is positively ancient.

      The situation regarding retrospective planning applications is, in my view, bizarre. Can a motorist who travels from Redbridge to Gants Hill at 80 mph be let off if he goes back again and drives within the speed limit? Unauthorised development, where permission should have been sought, should attract a penalty of (say) 25% of the cost of the work.

      Delete
    2. Not good enough - the unauthorised development should be demolished and no building work permitted for five years.

      Delete
    3. Don't disagree with the idea of demolition. But not sure about the 5 year ban. What happens if a property where demolition has been enforced changes ownership in, say, 2 years? Is the new owner barred from development for the remaining 3 years?

      Delete
    4. Morris,
      If the sale of a property with Planning Permission includes a premium, then the sale of a property with a Planning Restriction should have the opposite?

      Delete
    5. Maybe - but my point is to question whether a fixed term prohibition should penalise an innocent party.

      Delete
    6. Can't see the problem - if you know that an illegal development will not only be demolished but will effectevely prevent you from selling the property for five years, you'll be jolly careful about getting planning permission before you start.

      Delete
  6. Nick Hayes (Fullwell Ward)10:45 am, November 16, 2012

    I am happy to report that, subject to an amendment by the Conservatives to beef it up a bit, the motion oppposing permitted development rights for 6m and 8m rear extensions was agreed by full council last night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And here's the report in the Ilford Recorder Click!

      Delete
  7. It now appears that Clamerclown is about to announce very severe restrictions on the right to apply for judicial review over controversial planning decisions. Is this dictator aboout to rip up magna carta?

    The sooner this disastrous, out of touch government is brought down the better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Cameron: "We need to throw everything we’ve got at winning in this global race."

      A very concise summary of the central logic of capitalism. A war of all against all, a race for which we should jettison all other concerns. Cooperation with other nations is a loser's strategy. We must win the "race"... A race towards what? A race without end, without a goal - simply profit for profit's sake. Wish I could see how future history books will judge our age (if, after all this, we actually survive)...

      Delete
    2. NICK HAYES (Fullwell Ward)7:25 pm, November 26, 2012


      Judicial Review is a way of setting aside planning decisions (whether to grant or refuse), it seldom involves consideration of the merits and more often relates to a forensic analysis as to whether procedural steps were correctly followed. The idea that curtailing judicial review somehow circumscribes local democratic participation in decision-making seems somewhat counter-intuitive.

      Delete
    3. With a little more effort I'm sure Nick Hayes could have said that in plain English.

      Delete