Skip to content

The lawyers here will know more than I do about this

Strict limits on the height of houses could be axed under the biggest overhaul of Britain’s planning laws for more than 70 years.

Sajid Javid, the Local Government Secretary, is examining plans to relax strict laws dating back to 1947 which ban new homes from being taller than surrounding properties.

Ministers are also reviewing rules which prevent neighbouring properties from being cast into shadows in a bid to solve the nation’s housing crisis.

“Lights” is common law isn’t it? So not something they can gaily legislate upon? Or rather something they’re going to have to be careful about?

37 thoughts on “The lawyers here will know more than I do about this”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Any attempt to come between the British homeowner and his light, green spaces, peace and/or quiet is doomed to fail. No party would be so stupid. It would be easier to re-value council rates and they can’t do that either.

    If they are worried about property prices the sensible option is to stop importing quite so many rapists and terrorists. Failing that, reduce the pressure on places like London by moving more functions out of the city. Not everything needs to be in London. Parliament and the Civil Service for instance. Move them somewhere more suitable. Hull for instance.

    What they will do is turn a blind eye to building slums in ethnic communities. People are already cramming illegals into their garden sheds. They will continue to do so. The police will continue to ignore them. London will have its own favelas.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    ” Not everything needs to be in London. Parliament and the Civil Service for instance. Move them somewhere more suitable. Hull for instance.”

    When I was contracting to DCMS in 100 Parliament Street I used to say that when the revolution comes we’re going to turn the place in to a hotel and they can all go and work in Grimsby. They though I was joking.

    There is no need for the Civil Service to be based in Central London, we’re no longer sending paper memos round by courier.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in North Dorset – “when the revolution comes we’re going to turn the place in to a hotel and they can all go and work in Grimsby.”

    The problem with Grimsby and Hull is that they are on the coast. It doesn’t really matter but I think the new capital ought to be out of range of naval artillery. Or at least give our non-existent AA guns a few seconds to shoot at the enemy.

    So the capital has to be in the North and away from the coast. The obvious choice, then, is Sheffield. The Civil Service and the city are destined for each other.

    And on the plus side, if we go to war with Russia and they drop a nuclear weapon on the capital. Oh well. Stiff upper lip and all that. I am sure we shan’t be deterred!

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    smfs,

    I was advocating moving the capital to Hull or Grimsby, just what’s left of the civil service. I’m happy to send MPs anywhere, Sheffield will do.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “What we need is for them to be subject to the effects of their own policies. That means Rotherham. Or possibly Luton.”

    I love the idea of the Arts Council and the BFI in Luton.

  6. Wouldn’t Luton instead be an ideal location for a brand new 6 runway airport (to replace Heathrow)? If the Thames proposal is too far east?

    Close enough to London, but more accessible for the north. Some infrastructure is already there, hence simply redevelop / extend that existing site – perhaps in a north westerly direction…

  7. So the capital has to be in the North and away from the coast. The obvious choice, then, is Sheffield. The Civil Service and the city are destined for each other.

    And on the plus side, if we go to war with Russia and they drop a nuclear weapon on the capital.

    Wasn’t that the plot of Threads?

  8. That’s the answer!!!! Merger to form the United Kingdom of Australia and Great Britain, with Canberra as capital.

  9. strict laws dating back to 1947 which ban new homes from being taller than surrounding properties.

    Am I understanding this right? So no building in England is higher than the highest building that existed prior to 1947? No wonder Prince Charles is concerned about suburban sprawl.

  10. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I’ve said it before: look at southern England on Google Earth. It’s supposedly incredibly densely populated, yet it’s a giant green blob with a few dots of grey. You could build a million new homes in just Devon, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, West Sussex, Kent, Berkshire and Somerset and you’d barely be able to see the difference. That’s assuming you could find the brickies and chippies etc..

  11. @dearieme,

    I don’t know why Europe doesn’t do the same – we could pay the French to take them all. To Guyana.

  12. You are ignoring the salient fact that Sayid Javid has begun the Tory Party’s panicked realisation that allowing homeowners to keep all the imputed income from house price inflation (really land price inflation) from 1963 onwards has now made houses too expensive and home-ownership impossible for the rising generation.Married couples living with their parents, apart, is not a good look for a party that has no other policies but home owning democracy (Well they do have policies on further privatisation following their total abject failure with housing).So its goodbye Conservatives. Couldn’t do the Maths,

  13. Land price inflation?

    Surely you mean the speculative value of what land could be worth once it is developed.

  14. But, DBC, the government has no choice in the matter – it cannot take away the imputed income because it’s not real – it only exists in your mind and that of your fellow-sufferers. I have been living in the same house for twenty years and I haven’t has a brass farthing in income from the change in house prices.

  15. Bloke in North Dorset,

    Hedgehog,

    “Am I understanding this right? So no building in England is higher than the highest building that existed prior to 1947? No wonder Prince Charles is concerned about suburban sprawl.”

    In order to go higher you would need to get what is termed as “full planning permission”. This is very time consuming and costly because even if convince the local authority of your case anyone can object, and usually do. There is an appeals process which in theory can be taken to the Supreme Court.

    On top of the general rules we also have conservation areas, areas of special scientific interest, green belts (these are designed to prevent urban sprawl and protect the rights of those who live there or who look over them), national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It’s even harder to get any sort of planning consent at all in these areas.

    Furthermore we have a grading system for some buildings depending on their perceived historical importance, extra clearance is needed for work on these building or any in the immediate area if it impacts the graded building in anyway.

    Needless to say we have a special breed of people who know all these rules and how to object to any planning application, and they do.

  16. @ dearieme
    No, that was the imputed rental income that was taxed.
    Dear old DBC wants to tax a different imaginary income – that from the rise in the notional price of a house that is not for sale.

  17. AIUI there is no explicit “right to light” – but it is one of the guidelines planners use when assessing a property. Some people talk about the 45˚ rule and stuff like that – which again don’t actually exist.
    It is actually legal to build right up to your boundary line – and if that happens to block light to a neighbour’s window which ends up with a view of a brick wall 3 feet away, then that’s too bad.

  18. @J
    As you might guess from the date I was ,indeed, referring to Schedule A.
    50+ years and house prices have inflated beyond reason and the Tories who have relied on the lucky generations voting for them in exchange for tax free unearned capital gains (bribery in other words) are now encountering a generation which is 1) missing out 2) pissed off that house price inflation is making them live with their parents separately for years on end.
    You ill advisedly dismiss LVT out of hand; you cannot do the same with Schedule A which was very effective for many years and whose abolition has returned to bite the dimwit Tories on the arse.

  19. @ DBC Reed
    If you were referring to schedule A which taxed the notional rent (income) why did you say you wanted to tax capital appreciation? Am I supposed to guess that what you mean is something completely different from what you say?
    The capital appreciation is nothing to do with rent – most* of it is due to the housing shortage created by the Blair/Brown government (well over 3m new immigrants – the *increase* in the number of UK residents born abroad was more than 3m in 10 years 2001 to 2011) and demand for 9 months of the year for accommodation for an *extra* million-plus students living away from home increases demand for housing by twice as much as new build (even before they dynamited some of the tower blocks built under Wilson). The only way that supply and demand could balance in this situation was for prices to rise so much that enough people were priced out of the market that demand shrank to the level of supply.

    * House prices more than doubled (rose by 147%) under New Labour so it is they who are responsible for the large majority of capital appreciation, so it is ridiculous to blame the Tories – especially when I can call up the Halifax Index in seconds to prove you wrong

  20. The Napoleonic war forts built in the Solent could house Parliament. They were good enough for Dr Who and, was it, the Silurians? Waiting correction

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *