Friday 26 July 2013
No Consequential Improvement
A couple of weeks ago the High Court ruled against a judicial review of Eric Pickles' decision not to enact the consequential impovements proposals for new Building Regulations. While I cannot say I am surprised by the decision I must admit that I am disappointed that the case brought by ACE was not allowed to proceed further. Readers of this blog will know that I support the concept of consequential improvements as an important way of increasing the energy efficiency of the UK's housing stock. Furthermore, although I admit I have no analysis to prove the contention, I suspect that a permanenet consequential improvements requirement would be more beneficial to the construction industry/building trade than will the temporary relaxation of permitted development rights. It's that damn DCGL again!
Tuesday 16 July 2013
Bonkers Planning
My previous post about Planet Pickles reminds me that earlier this year our Parish Council wrote to our MP to point out a glaring anomaly in the 2008 Permitted Development Order. I reproduce the letter below:
The rules concerning what extensions,
improvements and alterations a householder may make to their house without the
need for a planning application are clearly set out in the DCLG document “Permitted
development for householders: Technical guidance, 2010”. Inter alia the rules
However, there appears to be no restriction
to the size of an extension to the principal elevation of a dwelling house if
that elevation does not front a highway. Such circumstances are most likely to
occur outside settlement boundaries which, in the case of Wonersh Parish, means
within at least one of the GB, AONB or AGLV.
Wonersh Parish Council (WPC) considers that
it has an important role in examining and commenting upon all planning
applications affecting the parish. Significant areas of the parish fall into at
least one of the Green Belt (GB), the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB), or the Surrey Hills Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). WPC
particularly seeks to ensure that these localities are not detrimentally
affected by proposed development and Waverley Borough Council (WBC), the local
planning authority, has provisions in its Local Plan that similarly seek to
protect such areas.
WPC is becoming increasingly concerned that
under certain circumstances the changes made to the Town and County Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 by the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No 2) (England) Order 2008 inappropriate
rural development can and is deemed to be permitted. WPC therefore requests
that you make representation to the Department for Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) to seek to have this anomaly removed. Details of the issue
are outlined below.
i.
proscribe any enlargement of a
dwelling house which would extend beyond a wall which
a.
fronts a highway and
b.
forms either the principal
elevation or a side elevation of the original dwelling house;
ii.
restrict the depths of any rear
extension and the width of any side extension.
Since 2008 WPC has seen and commented upon
several planning applications which have sought to take advantage of this
apparent loophole, all of which have been granted a Certificate of Lawfulness
by WBC. In the latest of these the applicant is seeking to increase the size of
the dwelling house by approximately 100% in a manner which WPC considers to be
wholly inappropriate for its rural location within the GB and AGLV. Such
development would normally be proscribed by WBC’s Local Plan under which
extensions outside settlement boundaries would be limited to increasing the
floor space of the original dwelling by no more than 40%. Both WPC’s concerns
and WBC’s policy with respect to rural development are nullified in this case
by the provisions of the 2008 Order.
WPC thanks you for your attention and looks
forward to hearing, in due course, the outcome of any representation you are
able to make.
Our MP forwarded the letter to DCLG and what reply did she get (from Nick Boles MP)? Well, yes, DCLG recognise that there is an anomaly. But will they do anything about it? No. They say it's down to the local planning authority to exercise an Article 4 constraint. Now how bonkers is that? You oversee bad policy, recognise that it is bad policy, but ask a lower tier of government to try to straighten it out using an almost unworkable alternative piece of legislation. DCLG get my vote as the worst, most incoherent, waste-of-space government department.
Planet Pickles Strikes Again
The following is reproduced from Edie. It speaks for itself.
Renewable energy company Ecotricity has hit out at the Government for its approach to planning, claiming it has introduced conflicting rules for certain projects.
Last week the Government announced that it will allow applications from business and commercial projects to be determined at national level, avoiding local level decisions.
However, at the beginning of June the Government announced that planning guidelines would give local communities earlier and better involvement in the siting of onshore wind farms.
Ecotricity founder, Dale Vince, said: "At the beginning of June, the government announced that it was going to give "local communities a greater say on planning" and as evidence of its apparent commitment to localism, it issued yet another set of planning guidelines that meant local communities had greater opportunity to veto onshore wind projects - this was supposed to be what Eric Pickles called "localism in action".
"Now, barely three weeks later, the government has announced that it is to allow projects such as food processing plants, theme parks, warehouses and hotel complexes to completely bypass those local communities and seek planning permission directly at national level. Where is the localism in that?
Vince backed the need to cut red tape and agreed that an efficient and effective planning process "that balances local opinion with national interest" must be put in place.
"Surely it should be consistent, rather than the situation we have now where a theme park is fast-tracked as nationally important infrastructure, while wind energy is left in a kind of planning ghetto, in the same category as a new garden fence," he added.
As I said - it speaks for itself - DCLG appears to be acting as incoherently as ever.
Renewable energy company Ecotricity has hit out at the Government for its approach to planning, claiming it has introduced conflicting rules for certain projects.
Last week the Government announced that it will allow applications from business and commercial projects to be determined at national level, avoiding local level decisions.
However, at the beginning of June the Government announced that planning guidelines would give local communities earlier and better involvement in the siting of onshore wind farms.
Ecotricity founder, Dale Vince, said: "At the beginning of June, the government announced that it was going to give "local communities a greater say on planning" and as evidence of its apparent commitment to localism, it issued yet another set of planning guidelines that meant local communities had greater opportunity to veto onshore wind projects - this was supposed to be what Eric Pickles called "localism in action".
"Now, barely three weeks later, the government has announced that it is to allow projects such as food processing plants, theme parks, warehouses and hotel complexes to completely bypass those local communities and seek planning permission directly at national level. Where is the localism in that?
Vince backed the need to cut red tape and agreed that an efficient and effective planning process "that balances local opinion with national interest" must be put in place.
"Surely it should be consistent, rather than the situation we have now where a theme park is fast-tracked as nationally important infrastructure, while wind energy is left in a kind of planning ghetto, in the same category as a new garden fence," he added.
As I said - it speaks for itself - DCLG appears to be acting as incoherently as ever.
Thursday 11 July 2013
Electricity Capacity - Again
Golly gosh! We have a 122 page report from Ofgem telling us that the electricity system is getting a tad squeezed. We know this! Even this ill-informed blog has highlighted the problem on a number of occasions. The words "Rome", "fiddling" and "burns" spring to mind.
Successive governments have ducked and fudged the issue, failed to put sensible market mechanisms in place and generally failed the electorate. Given that energy is the starting point for the nation's value chain this represents an horrendous dereliction of duty. The current mob seems to me to be no better than its predecessors. Dare I say it? Bring back the CEGB with all its faults!
Successive governments have ducked and fudged the issue, failed to put sensible market mechanisms in place and generally failed the electorate. Given that energy is the starting point for the nation's value chain this represents an horrendous dereliction of duty. The current mob seems to me to be no better than its predecessors. Dare I say it? Bring back the CEGB with all its faults!
MPC - No Change
So the MPC voted for no change last week. This is hardly surprising given that Mark Carney had only been in post for a week or so. However, I have to say I was a little bit surprised at the strength of the statement about long term interest rate propspects. To be as explicit as the statement was risks a future conjunction of egg and face, although in this case I don't think that's too likely. I guess one underlying reason for the statement might be an attempt to drive a little volatility out of markets. We shall see.
No change to QE seems to me to be a good decision but some of the noise from commentators is a little concerning. Take KPMG, for instance. This is clearly suggesting that a future increase in QE is firmly on the cards. Don't we already have enough stimulus in the economy? (Although some of it is mad - such as the moves to prop up house prices - come on guys, let the market find it's own level). And there are some bonkers ways to creating stealth QE already up and running. Interest paid on gilts owned by the Bank as part of QE is now being handed back to Treasury. Isn't that just a tad circular? This is boosting money supply at just a time when it would appear, at least in the cases of households and private firms (excluding the financial sector, of course), that it's pretty good anyway.
As an ordinary Joe I'd like to see us moving to a position where interest rates are no longer at rock bottom, where it pays to save, where bond and gilt yields actually reflect inflation and expected growth, and where central authorities have managed to butt out of interventionist policies.
There is still a lot of pain to be borne, but isn't time we really took the medicine? Cheap money is propping up zombie firms and households. It's time they were purged from the system.
No change to QE seems to me to be a good decision but some of the noise from commentators is a little concerning. Take KPMG, for instance. This is clearly suggesting that a future increase in QE is firmly on the cards. Don't we already have enough stimulus in the economy? (Although some of it is mad - such as the moves to prop up house prices - come on guys, let the market find it's own level). And there are some bonkers ways to creating stealth QE already up and running. Interest paid on gilts owned by the Bank as part of QE is now being handed back to Treasury. Isn't that just a tad circular? This is boosting money supply at just a time when it would appear, at least in the cases of households and private firms (excluding the financial sector, of course), that it's pretty good anyway.
As an ordinary Joe I'd like to see us moving to a position where interest rates are no longer at rock bottom, where it pays to save, where bond and gilt yields actually reflect inflation and expected growth, and where central authorities have managed to butt out of interventionist policies.
There is still a lot of pain to be borne, but isn't time we really took the medicine? Cheap money is propping up zombie firms and households. It's time they were purged from the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)