Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
National Changes to Planning Law to 'Dilute Democratic Oversight and Choke off Affordable Housing'
According to a recent article in The Guardian, RIBA believes that the proposed changes to England's planning laws will 'democratic oversight, choke off affordable housing and lead to the creation of “slum” dwellings'.
The law change is currently out for consultation and I would urge any of you who care about your environment to review the proposals and contribute to the consultation.
Tags for Forum Posts: planning
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Arkady on
-
Sir, my point is entirely to the contrary of what you suggest. I'd encourage you to read the report I linked to subsequently, but also the article (linked in the original tweet thread) that my quotation about '70s bungalows was from which makes the point more succinctly. This is categorically not about elites, but empowering local people to improve their neighbourhoods. The association of bad architecture with the less-well-off is precisely the thing we should be seeking to remedy.
By granting themselves planning permission (through local plans, which is exactly what the proposal is about, after all) to redevelop their properties people will gain the ability to leverage the funds themselves.
-
-
Simon,
Putting aside your slightly baffling tone for a moment, I think there are a couple of misconceptions in your argument here.
First, someone moving into a new area presumably wouldn't expect to have their views override the majority of people that had agreed to a local plan, anymore than they would expect to insist on an immediate new election for their MP. Local plans are generally revised regularly (from memory it's every five years under the current Localism Act). Further, if a proposal does not meet the agreed plan then there should still be a mechanism for people to weigh in - that's something we should certainly fight for. At any rate, the current system allows people to be consulted - and then ignored, even if the overwhelming opinion is against the development. We need stronger local plans, agreed by referenda, with tough enforcement.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make about second homes and so on (though they are something I'd restrict rather punitively). The light issue, though, is one that I think is a tad overwrought. The most successful form of architecture in the world is the 'gentle density' of 5-7 story mansion blocks - often with commercial premises below - common to the 'middle ring' of most European cities (and other successful ones elsewhere - New York comes to mind). Successful in terms of outcomes - health (physical and mental), experience of crime, neighbourhood formation, and so on. Supposed lack of light does not, it seems to me, feature highly on a lost of possible criticism about that urban form ("New York! Paris! There's so little light!")
UK cities tend to have a 'missing middle' in this respect - going from relatively high-rise to two-three story suburbia. Swathes of our metroland lack decent amenities and diverse local economies precisely because they do not have the density of population to sustain them - those areas are also dreadful for commuting, have high car ownership and so on. But we can do something to remedy that, and transform swathes of featureless low-rise into a successful urban form. My original point was that the White Paper shows how his can be achieved in a practical way, delivering vast numbers of new homes and beautifying our streets in the process.
I strongly recommend that people check out @createstreets, who were part of the team that delivered the report that influenced the White Paper. They do fantastic work in this area.
The report itself is fantastic, and fills me with hope (a rare commodity these days). Read it and be cheered:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/...
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
The problem with assessments of what is beautiful is that they are subjective. Is Poundbury more beautiful than the Alexandra Road estate?
-
-
A thoughtful point Michael, but I think the objective/subjective question is a distraction from two more important ones, particularly in a democracy:
1) what sort of architecture do the majority of people find beautiful, and want for their area?
2) what sort of architecture is associated with better outcomes - physical and mental health, low crime, strong neighbourhoods, and so on.
Study after study has shown that the answers to 1&2 generally coincide - gentle density, symmetry, streetscapes rather than one-off buildings, natural materials, local style rather than 'anywhere' (innovation within traditional forms), and so on. Both the examples you cite meet some of those criteria - one perhaps more than the other.
I'd suggest that the 'beauty is objective' argument benefits only profit-oriented developers who want to instigate developments that the majority of people don't want.
-
-
It has merits, but slightly misses the point, I think. It's pastiche rather than innovating within traditional forms. It does have a degree of the 'gentle density' we should be aiming for though, and is an improvement on the identikit surburban housing sprawling across a lot of the countryside.
-
-
I’m not seeing how giving the lions share of planning rights to developers will do anything other than produce more identikit sprawl - that’s where the money is. The problem with the planning system has always been that it is loaded in favour of the developer. An applicant has the right to appeal against a decision, at zero cost to them. The only option to those who oppose development is a very costly and potentially bankrupting judicial review. The new provisions do nothing to change that.
I also get a bit wound up by the assertion that seems to have become accepted truth that it is the planning system that has prevented development of new homes. Developers, right now, have many thousands of permissions to build - they simply don’t put bricks on the ground.
-
-
I agree with you about developers not getting on with the job - they own plenty of land that they're waiting to be more profitable.
Page 44-48 of the White Paper tackles your concerns about identikit stuff - and rebuffs, I think - the idea that developers 'would have the lion's share of planning rights' - the rights are to be determined by local communities.
By default the national design code will favour Georgian-style terraces/Victorian mansion blocks. And then Proposal 11 talks about how you build on the existing Local Plan model (i.e. created by Neighbourhood Forums) to refine these guides for local needs and aesthetics:
"Proposal 11: To make design expectations more visual and predictable,
we will expect design guidance and codes to be prepared locally with
community involvement, and ensure that codes are more binding on
decisions about development. As national guidance, we will expect the National Design Guide, National Model Design Code and the revised Manual for Streets to have a direct bearing on the design of new communities. But to ensure that schemes reflect the diverse character of our country, as well as what is provably popular locally, it is important that local guides and codes are prepared
wherever possible. These play the vital role of translating the basic characteristics of good places into what works locally, and can already be brought forward in a number of ways:
by local planning authorities to supplement and add a visual dimension to their Local Plans;
through the work of neighbourhood planning groups; or by applicants in bringing forward
proposals for significant new areas of development."By developing a detailed and enforceable local plan - at a street-by-street level where appropriate - you get the kind of development you want and give developers (or even better, residents themselves as discussed elsewhere) the certainty to go ahead and do it.
-
-
Exactly! Very common elsewhere, but in England suburbia dominates except along some high streets.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
