Cookie policy
Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Politics and Finance

Planning permission ditched for extensions and conservatories

John Fitzsimons
by Lovemoney Staff John Fitzsimons on 06 September 2012  |  Comments 18 comments

The Government is to allow larger extensions and conservatories to be built without planning permission for a limited time in an effort to help kickstart the economy.

Planning permission ditched for extensions and conservatories

The Government is to announce plans to allow homeowners to extend their properties without the need for planning permission.

For a limited period larger than usual extensions and conservatories will be permitted, while shops, offices and industrial units will also be able to expand without needing the approval of local authorities.

Extending current limits

Under current rules, planning permission is required for extensions of more than three to four metres from the rear wall of a property, depending on whether it is semi-detached or detached. This will be doubled to six to eight metres. Meanwhile businesses will be able to expand shops by 100 square metres and industrial units by 200 metres.

The plans also include the ability for unused offices or industrial properties to be switched to residential developments without going through the planning permission process.

The changes will not apply in protected areas.

The Government believes that “getting the planners off our backs” thanks to these new Permitted Development Rights will be a step towards kickstarting the economy.

Building new homes

The Government also wants to boost the building of new properties. If developers can show that current requirements to build a certain number of affordable properties within each development is making the project 'unviable' they can ignore that requirement altogether. This will apparently help build 75,000 properties which are currently stalled.

£10 billion of Government money will be going towards the building of extra homes, while 5,000 homes specifically for rent will be built, following last month's Montague report. You can read about the report in Is build-to-let the answer to the housing shortage?

The new home backlog

However, new research from the Local Government Association, suggests that it’s not planning permission that is holding back the development of new homes.

It believes 400,000 new homes have received planning permission, yet have not been completed. In fact, building work has yet to even begin on more than half of those developments.

It puts this down to a lack of builder finance and the struggles of first-time buyers to access mortgages.

Indeed, the overall percentage of planning applications green lighted last year hit a ten-year high.

Help for first-time buyers

In addition to the new planning permission rules, the Government is to extend the FirstBuy scheme, which offers first-time buyers equity loans of up to 20% of the property value to use as a deposit, to help an extra 16,500 buyers.

What do you think? Is this sort of relaxing of planning laws going to make a difference? Do you plan to take advantage? What would your reaction be if your neighbours took advantage of the new rules? Let us know your thoughts in the comment box below.

More on home improvements:

Things to look for in a good tradesman

How-to » Make home improvements

DIY spending falls to record low

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (18)

  • electricblue
    Love rating 653
    electricblue said

    At first I thought this change in legislation a bit of a gimick, but on reflection I realised that even in my little town there must be at least 50 -100 office/storerooms above shops which in the past were used at flats and are now virtually empty. The change of use planning was certainly a hindrance to these being brought back into residential occupation.

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Grobbendonk
    Love rating 27
    Grobbendonk said

    Great, make it even easier for people to concrete over their gardens, leading to less green space, and less permeable land for water, so more flooding and more water shortages.

    I'd also point at the LGA report saying that planning permission for new housing is not the problem - I'd actually ban all new planning permission in any area where less than 90% of the currently granted projects are currently under construction, and where brownfield sites are not being reused. Existing planning permission for schemes needs to be used up, and brownfield redeveloped before we pointlessly concrete over more countryside with middle-class rabbit hutches (most of which are of an unacceptably low quality!)

    Another stupid, short-sighted and ignorant move by this government.

    To balance that, I totally agree with making it easier to re-purpose land that's fallen out of use for it's current purpose.

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • timboreeves
    Love rating 3
    timboreeves said

    Building Regs now require that rainwater is displaced into a soak-away 5 metres from the house, so there is no impact on permeable land.

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldgold
    Love rating 4
    oldgold said

    It is a national disgrace that builders are refusing to proceed with the construction of homes for which planning permission has already been granted. The government should take firm action on this - substantial cash penalties perhaps. If this were to result in a dearth of applications, land prices would fall - a good thing, I feel.

    The government should also act firmly on all empty properties, not just unused rooms above commercial premises. Again, large financial penalties should do the trick!

    The relaxation of planning rules for extensions to existing properties is almost certain to result in antagonism between neighbours. Until I moved away from the area, I was chairman of a council planning & highways committee. There were already disagreements between households under the existing regulations re extensions. Most modern homes stand on small plots; an 8 metre extension would have a massive impact on the environment.

    I fear that the DCLG doesn't know its fundament from its humerus. Indeed, I fear that the coalition government, in its entirety is certifiable! First, there is a localism bill intended to encourage decisions to be made at the local level. Then, the government decides, instead, to centralise decision-making and to make a bonfire of the post-war planning laws that have prevented the worst excesses of pre-war ribbon development, etc.

    Please, before accusing me of being a reactionary Tory nimby, let me assure you that I'm not. The philosophy/ethos of the P&H committee I led was to raise no objection to any application unless there was a very significant reason to do so - and such objections were very, very rare.

    Oh, by the way, none of these governmental 'wizard wheezes' will get the economy moving. Sorry guys and gals!

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Cauldstanes
    Love rating 0
    Cauldstanes said

    This article fails to say to which parts of the country this applies. The news would lead me to believe that it only applies to England so it would be helpful to know that when reading it for the first time as I initially thought it was the entire UK. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do exist.

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • johnmxn3
    Love rating 17
    johnmxn3 said

    What is an Extention?

    So the Govt wants to "get the planners off our backs". Well excuse me for laughing, but it is Central Govt which issues the regular Planning Permission Guidelines to Council Planning Department in the first place.

    At the moment without planning permission, except in conservation areas, you can buils a conservatory 3 metres high and 3 metres out from the wall of your house. The length of the conservatory can go the whole length of the property as long as you have not already used your permitted development extension rights, usually 10% of the size of your property.

    If I took advantage of the proposed new regs while they are in force, I could totally block the view across farmland of my next door neighbour, as our gardens in our semi detached properties are 7 metres long. As the party wall can be built to the eaves line of bricks, not glass, I could be really unneighbourly to him. The current regs take into account effect on neighbours. If I decided to build the party wall of glass, I could overlook everything they currently do in their garden. Planning guidelines have in the past prevented the development of awful buildings which completely change the outlook of an area.

    Nowhere in Mr Camerons statement did I see reference to the height limit for the new regs, currently 3 metres. Does this mean I can build a new conservatory to 12 metres high, the height of the gable end that I might decide to tack a conservatory on to?

    As for allowing developers to put as many buildings on a plot as they wish, does that mean that the Environmental Planning Laws of making sure each property has sufficient amenity land for a garden and play area for children is now defunct? Is he giving permission for building close together slums which we have tried to prevent for years?

    I agree with other posters. Make the people who have planning permissions already for the 400,000 uncompleted buildings finish the jobs. If the reason they are not completed is financial, then make an order to sell the land or property at the market price to someone who will do the building.

    People who think I am wrong, wait until your neighbour builds a monstrosity next door then wonder why we let the Govt allow it in the first place. Welcome to years of neighbour against neighbour disputes. Here come the lawyers....

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    The fact that the Government choose to ignore the question of the 400,000 properties where permission has been granted but await completion, shows that yet again this is just a game of politics.

    No Government in the last 30 odd years has done anything to create concrete, (no pun intended) affordable housing or help priced out FTB'S. Every policy is geared towards maintaining house price levels or increasing them. That's only to be expected from an inflationary money financial system.

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • vega
    Love rating 3
    vega said

    Does this mean I can increase the area and height of my conservatory within the regulations like the cucumber?

    For this I will then have to pay more for the business rate or council tax?

    I suppose I could make a good taxable profit by letting out beds to myriads of immigrants!

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tanni
    Love rating 92
    Tanni said

    Just a stunt to encourage rich developers to further the building of new homes. Nothing in the pipeline to help bring dilapidated, ghost towns back in to use.

    Also there are certain authorities which encourage the "uniformity" of property to be uniform..ie same as those around it without odd or out of place looking properties. This proposal will result in more eyesore properties and developments which will not only ruin the uniformity of your street but may put buyers off and result in property values falling in certain unrestricted development areas.

    The government needs to leave by laws and local planning to the respective local authority and it's elected councillors rather than meddle in its affairs. It won't all be doom but the solution to kick start the stalled economy is rather lack lustre and appears politically motivated to keep some of the upper and middle classes at bay with discontent growing about future growth and the governments blind long term focus.

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • vega
    Love rating 3
    vega said

    One other point I missed on my earlier comment.

    Planning holds second place to 'building regulations'.

    Its invariably simple to obtain planning approval but another story when the building regulation officer visits.

    Any comments on this please!

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 149
    MK22 said

    This is just a stunt by the Government to make sure traditional Tory voters still vote Tory. It is unlikely to do anything to ease the housing shortage, it probably won't help 1st time buyers, but it will help true blue Tory voters increase the value of their properties. Is 2015 getting closer?

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 653
    electricblue said

    @Tanni

    Yeah, because we all know that local councillors are so honest and altruistic that they only have the interests of their local residents at heart. That's why my town council had the town clerk on £100K a year. Local councils are crooked and self serving. Who wants a street with uniformity anyway? Building regulations always still apply and if anyone on my street wanted to paint their house pink then good luck to them! I don't think their windows would last five minutes, but they can at least try and exercise a right to be different. Our Labour controlled council has made a dog's breakfast of every major planning issue they touched and cost this town millions in inward investment. Instead of refurbishing properties they demolished entire streets and replaced them with the very middle-class unaffordable little boxes everyone accused the Tories of promoting. We all know how close to the hearts of Labour ministers the idea of affordable housing was - John Prescott had an intense interest, especially when council homes in Hull were sold off at a pittance to a property company run by his son.

    Report on 07 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • barrowag
    Love rating 2
    barrowag said

    Hi there, im lucky enough to rent a 2 bed flat with small concrete garden which doesn't overlook anything. now this planning is here, Can anyone please advise me if i will be allowed to split the existing flat into 2 one bed and build a third unit in the garden , Thanks Adrian

    Report on 07 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Conservatories
    Love rating 0
    Conservatories said

    NO!

    The people with a little money aren't spending it, and the people with no money have none to spend, with the exception of the top 5% who grease the politicians palms to make policy announcements to influence the stock market so they can get richer still!

    I imagine the county and small claims courts will be rushed off their feet for the next few years though!

    I voted UKIP last time, and will do for ever more!

    http://conservatoriesireland.ie/

    Report on 07 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • matchmade
    Love rating 38
    matchmade said

    I'm afraid most respondents here have no idea how expensive it is to build houses, or how affordable homes and S106 taxes cripple developers, resulting in the low level of construction (I agree the availability of mortgages and development funding also play a part). As a small developer-builder myself, if I find a building site with room for 5 houses, I have to give two of them away as "affordable homes" to a housing association, and am only reimbursed the construction cost. This means all the equally-large non-construction costs - the land, the design and planning fees, the environmental and bat surveys, the utility connections, the driveways, the cost of any access road, etc etc, as well as a little bit of income for me in return for all my hard work - have to be carried by the three remaining houses for private sale. However I can't pass all these extra costs onto the new houses, because they are in competition with second-hand houses: I have to accept the low market price, with the result I am squeezed incredibly hard by affordable homes, to the point it's not worth bothering with the build: affordable homes make the project unaffordable.

    In addition, I have to pay £20K per house on average in S106 taxes, as well as corporation tax on any profit I manage to make. Even national housebuilders, with their land banks and cosy deals with big landowners who bought large tracts of land cheaply years ago, average barely 10% gross profit margin, which is feeble when you compare with most other areas of business in the UK: look at the huge profits earnt by Apple, for example, yet people seem happy to pay their huge markups.

    Everyone attacks builders and developers for being "rich" - well, I'm not! Construction is a low-profit business, and affordable homes are killing it. In my view affordable homes and infrastructure should be paid for out of general taxation, including, yes, capital gains tax and corporation tax on landowners and developers, but also from taxes on the general population and businesses who all benefit hugely from the creation of new homes. This is how things used to work in the past: the government and councils raised the money from general taxation to buy land and pay builders to build council housing, and other builders were left alone to get on with the private houses which found their own price level. The infrastructure was funded nationally because it was for the good of everyone. Why should new schools, playground and roads be funded at the expense of new housing alone, when all the existing residents will be benefiting from these facilities yet aren't expected to pay a penny towards them? The Labour government made landowners, builders and by extension the buyers of new houses responsible for providing local infrastructure and meeting its social housing policies, and this seems to me fundamentally wrong and unjust.

    Report on 07 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • worlduser
    Love rating 4
    worlduser said

    I'm afraid whatever this government sticks it's fingers in turns brown and gooey for someone. Unfortunately, it always ends up being the taxpayer.

    To give an example; look what happened with diesel fuel. It used to be cheaper than petrol. Remember the government at the time saying "buy diesel cars, they are more economical and environmentally friendly." Even giving incentives to do just that! Then after everyone rushed to buy diesel (to run a more economical car) Kerrrrunch...diesel prices shot up.

    To get back to the point, I suspect they (the government) want as many unsuspecting people as possible, building extensions. When 'they' (using their snoopers) decide they have enough victims, 'they' will bring in their long awaited council tax reassessment. Bingo......more revenue!

    Am I cynical or what!

    Report on 08 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tanni
    Love rating 92
    Tanni said

    @matchmade, setup as a friends provident/social enterprise for a one off regeneration/development.

    I am speaking from experience and a proven track record with top ten local authorities and their housing, regeneration depts. do not believe me? Come down and I will show you.

    I can assure you that it is cheaper to build your own house rather then buy one ready made. Also as a developer you can make many thousands if not hundreds of thousands from building more then just one house, the more you construct the more you earn as otherwise you wouldn't make them!

    Re the s106, I've worked with social housing, private developers and regeneration bodies. I have managed to on numerous occasions secure funding,planning, consensus amongst locals/nimby crew by encouraging the tenants and residents of the area to jump up and down about investment on behalf of my employer. I can assure you that local authorities/housing providers bend over backwards to have projects match funded and will imply that all have been consulted and that 10 properties out of every 100 to be made will go down the affordable homes scheme. You are talking about millions of pounds here so what are ten houses? Nothing as the work is contracted out, the houses are made of cheap brick and concrete and in essence cost nothing as the workers on site are going to construct them as part of their tender anyway.imagine a plot of land that you have been given cheaply ie £100k. Now divide that plot into 100 plots. Allocate ten plots for s106 ( usually at the back or on the edge of the estate where it's less desirable) with the remaining plots build 90 homes at a third of the selling price. Sell 90 plots for £199k and above. You can calculate the amounts involved for yourself. Do not forget that you, developers can use for example european builders and materials from abroad. By doing this they do not have to abide by UK minimum wage as you pay them the minimum wage from their country. Do not believe me? Who were the workers on the Trafford centre, meadow hall, dome, Olympic stadiums etc...you'll be surprised. Re the finance for the development; the locals can apply for European and local funding to help underwrite the project.

    The council will give developers incentives ie portions of land, easy time with planning and help them secure funding under the guise that the local residents want it. The tender process can be more transparent. The workforce used is very rarely local and the resources used are very rarely local. So who benefits? A few social tenants and the rest of the housing gets sold to private individuals and management companies. The developer will not get involved unless he receives major numeration which is underwritten from the offset. Of course it's a little more complicated but you should get the picture. I left my role to offer freelance type consulting service at the request of various large scale developers and my services are available with a portfolio which may surprise some with negative outlooks.

    Also referencing the costs of infrastructure. Well you are building many homes and it makes sense that more residences will further burden the roads, schools and hospitals so a fair proportion of your taxable income must be used for infrastructure. Developers can spend over a million on just doing the consulting and winning support amongst the locals for their project. I would say that developers need to do more and give more to the locals in terms of s106. The current system has far too many loop holes.

    Report on 08 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • HappyHacker
    Love rating 18
    HappyHacker said

    As the extension relaxation does not apply to conservation areas, for those who live in these areas, which effectively make all the houses in the area "listed", getting permission will as usual be almost impossible. Local conservation will not be happy until we are all wearing smocks and straw hats and doffing them to the tourists.

    A knee jerk reaction that will not solve any of our problems.

    Report on 10 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Related content

Our top deals

Credit card
company 		Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR 		Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3