insane changes to planning law

[Tim Lund]

really Tim I do urge you to read my comments, which are about extensions. I have not commented on new homes. You have fallen into the government's trap of missing this plan because they have buried it in the new homes planning proposals.

Nor do I intend to comment on immigration. I am commenting on unrestricted extensions to existing properties, which BTW will result in fewer affordable homes (unless you count those of the neighbours whose properties will have been diminished).

Am I to assume you are happy to have your child's bedroom overlooked? Because that will be the result of these plans for many.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I think throughout most of their childhood, my children have had bedrooms which inquisitive neighbours might have looked into, but we took the precaution of putting up curtains. They also enjoyed playing in the garden, with neighbours who look over the fence if they wanted. We also let them go to school on their own, but we were of course very careless parents.

Extensions add habitable rooms.

What is truly insane is that by dint of being automatically rounded up as one of the usual suspects, Mary's views pass as those of the community for Lewisham Council.

[Tim Lund]

There are a few sites in particular in Sydenham and Forest Hill which I could imagine could be seriously impacted by such a change and leave the neighbours in virtually uninhabitable properties. This is exactly the type of development that requires planning rules.

It would be truly inspiring if anyone from SydSoc or FH Hill were prepared to identify such sites, so indicating that in other areas more habitable rooms could perhaps be added. This is what neighbourhood planning should be about, but instead it will merely provide another set of hard to comprehend planning reasons to be used against any prospect of having more people in our current rareified locality.

[michael]

There are a few sites in particular in Sydenham and Forest Hill which I could imagine could be seriously impacted by such a change and leave the neighbours in virtually uninhabitable properties. This is exactly the type of development that requires planning rules.

It would be truly inspiring if anyone from SydSoc or FH Hill were prepared to identify such sites.

I am thinking particularly of sites which have recently been refused planning permission, and a couple that were granted permission because they were judged not overly imposing on neighbouring properties. I'm happy to privately identify a few such examples where extending 6m-8m beyond the rear wall would be seriously detrimental to neighbours. But I don't want to create unnecessary panic by publicly identifying sites which could be impacted by a poor implementation of government plans, which I don't think will happen.

[dickp]

Planning is a public process. Building is normally a pretty public activity. Heck, with Google Earth, I can even peer into people's private back gardens, to assess the impact of any proposed builds.

So why not share those refused developments, so punters like me can decide whether refusals were really "reasonable"?

[14BradfordRoad]

Still not aware of the full facts (then again who is?) but my understanding is that this
bill is about the temporary relaxation of the planning rules for building / extending, etc.
As I understand it (so far) this is to speed up the long winded process of the time that
planning 'traditionally' sit on planning applications for 'well' any amount of time they feel
like!
Anyone who has experienced the 'slow crawl' that planning work at will agree that a more
effecient / effective system is generally needed anyhow. Genuine opposition for valid
planning reasons could be dealt with far more quickly too and no reason that genuine
opposition shouldn't be heard (as long as a good reason).

Let's hope that this old system gets the 'Gee-Up' that is long overdue and maybe some much
needed house building can begin! The homeless are growing in numbers all the time and
have waited long enough (imo)!!

Change was promised, we're still waiting for it to happen..

[marymck]

What is truly insane is that by dint of being automatically rounded up as one of the usual suspects, Mary's views pass as those of the community for Lewisham Council.

As Tim well knows I received an invitation to the Deptford planning workshop because I had attended the Sydenham Assembly. Possibly Tim's invitation, as a "usual suspect", to that same event also came via that route.

As ex Chair of the Sydenham Society, Tim is also aware that, as a civic society, SydSoc are a statutory consultee of the local authority - hence we're consulted. We also have approx 1,060 members - with more joining each month - which gives us legitimacy. Within the borough we've got a larger membership than the Blackheath Society, the only other community group that comes anywhere near us in size.

However, if as appears the case, Tim is unhappy with my sitting on the planning and conservation sub-committee then he and other members are perfectly within their rights to call for a vote to have me ejected from the committee and to put forward their own suggestion as to a replacement.

He will not of course silence me from speaking out as a concerned citizen, but it will be quite nice to have some of my time back. To use a well known misquotation: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women!) to do nothing.

[marymck]

Planning is a public process. Building is normally a pretty public activity. Heck, with Google Earth, I can even peer into people's private back gardens, to assess the impact of any proposed builds.

So why not share those refused developments, so punters like me can decide whether refusals were really "reasonable"?

This is not directed at dickp - but as a general point of information ...

Planning applications - successful or otherwise - can be viewed via the Lewisham planning portal. I suggest those interested in looking at refused developments do a search. There are plenty of examples there.

[dickp]

Yes, I know. I often check. I am sure I could get a list of Sydenham Society interventions, if I looked long enough.

But, if someone has an example they could give here and now, I could walk the dog past the affectec property this very afternoon.

I like to check my beliefs against the evidence, to ensure they stand up to my own scrunity.

Example of a justified refusal please..

[Tim Lund]

He will not of course silence me from speaking out as a concerned citizen, but it will be quite nice to have some of my time back. To use a well known misquotation: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women!) to do nothing.

Where is the evil in this case?

[Tim Lund]

Yes, I know. I often check. I am sure I could get a list of Sydenham Society interventions, if I looked long enough.

But, if someone has an example they could give here and now, I could walk the dog past the affectec property this very afternoon.

I like to check my beliefs against the evidence, to ensure they stand up to my own scrunity.

Example of a justified refusal please..

There's a standing offer of help to SydSoc to develop some web software which will give a complete picture of what cases they involve themselves with and how. The Planning and Conservtion committee should contact me if they are interested in such additional scrutiny.

[dickp]

Ooh, that would be good. Better if the Lewisham Planning Portal itself was more user friendly.

Why isn't the whole thing linked to a google map?

[Tim Lund]

SydSoc used to have a bit of a thing about Google Maps

There is this which some out there has developed, which gives a feed of Lewisham planning applications, and a while back I wrote some VBA which dug a bit further. But unlike most members of the SydSoc Planning and Conservation Committee, I am not retired, and I have some marketable skills with clients like to pay for, so already too much of my life is taken.

[michael]

Example of a justified refusal please..

My point was not about refused applications that would be allowed, but about the potential for developments that nobody would even consider submitting for consideration today because they would be told clearly that it would be doomed to failure. Such abortive applications rarely even find their way to the planning portal.

An example of one local extension that was recently refused by Lewisham, that would be allowed based on the press reports of the government plans would be in Chelsfield Gardens. See http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=66855
I have no opinion on this extension, but since it was actually built without planning permission you can probably see it for yourself and decide if you would have allowed it to remain or would have demanded it be removed. There are no details of the 7 objections received only the rather broad reasons for refusal.

[dickp]

Now, now Tim.

btw: that doesn't work. I'm just getting a screen of what looks like HTML.

[marymck]

SydSoc used to have a bit of a thing about Google Maps

Was that in your time as Chair, Tim? When you attended all those exec meetings about the Greyhound. That was all before my time, I'm afraid.

BTW I think you will find that the "majority" of the sub-committee are not retired. I'm sure that those that are would rather be gardening or following other enjoyable pursuits and those that aren't retired would rather be devoting our time to work (I'm freelance btw - I don't get paid if I'm not working and today I'm getting really behind schedule, hence why I haven't been able to PM dickp with some planning application details.)

[dickp]

This really isn't urgent you know! I am working too.

[michael]

But, if someone has an example they could give here and now, I could walk the dog past the affectec property this very afternoon.

This really isn't urgent you know! I am working too.

Make up your mind, I thought you wanted an example in time for your afternoon walk!

[JRobinson]

Against what? There is no legal right to light, and most of us who live in flats are already overlooked.

The current planning system isn't exactly great at ensuring we live in a pleasant environment, is it?

actually - there is a right to light.

[Tim Lund]

Now, now Tim.

btw: that doesn't work. I'm just getting a screen of what looks like HTML.

It's XML, in fact. You can write code to read it, select the information you are interested in, follow any links - e.g. to the planning documents, and from there pick up who's commented on anything, or the objections they have written.

If you look here, you can also see they conveniently give the latitudes and longitudes



- those <lat> and <lng> tags - so plotting on a map should be easy. I don't think they were there when I last looked ...

[Tim Lund]

BTW I think you will find that the "majority" of the sub-committee are not retired. I'm sure that those that are would rather be gardening or following other enjoyable pursuits and those that aren't retired would rather be devoting our time to work (I'm freelance btw - I don't get paid if I'm not working and today I'm getting really behind schedule, hence why I haven't been able to PM dickp with some planning application details.)

Apologies - that remark of mine was unfair.