Friday 17 December 2010

OK lads, pull up the drawbridge!

From The Guardian:

Community groups will be given the right to... vote on new housing developments under powers to be unveiled on Monday as part of the government's "big society" project...

The bill will create:

• A community right to build, allowing homeowners to add extensions or loft conversions, or new homes to be built, as long as a simple majority in the area votes in favour.


Summa summarum, once these local groups of self-appointed fascists* are in charge, existing homeowners will almost automatically be given planning permission to stick on an extra room or two (thus banking the latent gain when the total value of the house increases by more than the cost of the work done, which it does in most cases); but there won't be any more new housing built for those who would like to be homeowners, so they'll have to settle for renting in perpetuity or buying somewhere much smaller (thus paying additional rent for permission to use duly enlarged existing buildings).

Applied to the business world, this is tantamount to saying that red tape for existing businesses will be reduced but you can only start a new business if you first obtain permission from all other businesses in the area.

* Interestingly, it was Nulabour who insisted on sticking the word 'community' into every sentence, which was their code for 'looking after our special interest groups' (this reached its apogee with the catch-all gibberish phrase in the community). The Lib-Cons have now merrily hijacked this and 'the community' is now code for their own favoured special interest groups; the NIMBYs and Home-Owner-Ists.

7 comments:

s said...

Its insane. The planning bit anyway. What legal oversight will there be? As the law stands planning officials decide whether an application is contrary or not to the law, and make a recommendation to pass or refuse it. Councillors ultimately decide by vote, they can over-rule the officials but leave themselves open to legal costs if a developer gets the permission on appeal.

Are such safeguards going to exist in this new 'soviet' planning system? What if you apply for an extension for your house, and for whatever reason (your neighbour kicks up a stink and has more sway locally than you do for example) you get refused by the committee, despite other similar applications having been approved in the same location? Do you have any legal comeback? If there is an appeals system, and its found you were treated wrongly, are those who voted against legally liable?

Surely there is a complete lack of natural justice in people voting on things when they have such a close by vested interest? If you have been granted your own house extension, its in your own best interests to refuse as many more as possible as it will make your house worth more.

Sobers said...

That first comment was mine. Cold fingers!

Mark Wadsworth said...

s, yup. That's a fair summary.

Tim Almond said...

Applied to the business world, this is tantamount to saying that red tape for existing businesses will be reduced but you can only start a new business if you first obtain permission from all other businesses in the area.

That's very similar to how the old guilds (like the haulage guild) worked. You couldn't become a haulier unless all you went to a committee of existing hauliers.

Of course, everyone but the current hauliers got screwed by it.

What many people forget about the middle-class Conservatives (Heath, Thatcher, Major) is that they didn't just smash the unions, they also smashed the guilds and various price fixing schemes like the milk marketing board.

I'm convinced that one of the reasons the BBC gave Cameron such an easy ride is that he's from the establishment. He's the son of a stockbroker, grandson of a baronet and son-in-law of major landowner. They never had to spit at being forced to pay £140 for a TV license.

He'll do as much as that posh boy Blair did for widening class divisions in this country.

Mark Wadsworth said...

JT, I've a lot of time for John Major, and Thatcher had a lot of good ideas (in among the really bad ones) - but some of the best ones, to allow solicitors to act for you in Court (not just barristers) and to scrap restrictions on number of taxi drivers, never saw the light of day. Maybe tack on "recognise pre-nuptial agreements" to that list.

Bayard said...

"so they'll have to settle for renting"

Given that house prices are due to fall on the 18-year cycle, that is probably no bad thing. Given the determination of the British to become property owners no matter what, I suspect that in a few years thousands of would-be first time buyers will realise they had a narrow escape.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, ah yes, but the Home-Owner-Ist élite pretend that there is no 18 year cycle ("It's different this time!"), and are currently doing their best to keep the bubble inflated (rather too successfully for my liking).