New development opposition

[DaveR]

"With properties being bought and left empty and relatively low price elasticity due to latent demand from a huge overseas market, I would say it broadly is."

The effect of overseas investors is massively overstated, largely because it makes for good headlines in the Daily Mail, and similarly the stats just don't bear out the suggestion that there are significantly more properties being bought and left vacant than in previous years. Both of these phenomena are concentrated in 'super prime' areas and very high end new build projects, and although there is bound to be some trickle down effect, the bigger issue is a straightforward lack of supply.

Going back to the original subject of the thread, it seems to me that we are approaching a tipping point. Any rational analysis suggest that pop. density in Inner London has to increase fairly dramatically to bring some sanity back into the housing market and to enable London to carry on as a sustainable, growing city, but that means big changes to the look and feel of our period suburbs. Objectively there's nothing special architecturally about ED or any of the properties in it, but as a whole it is almost absurdly bucolic for an inner suburb of a huge city, with rows of terraces and green spaces, the butcher, the baker etc. I can understand perfectly well why people want to hold onto that, but I think change is inevitable, and the focus should be on trying to ensure that the planning system manages the process effectively i.e. development in the right place, good quality buildings, and minimising disruption for residents - all pretty basic things.

Arguing about regulation of the property market is a red herring - it's a way for smug lefties to pretend that they're not equally responsible for rising prices, whilst luxuriating in their houses with gardens and opposing anything that might impact on their own suburban bliss.

[BrandNewGuy]

"...a sustainable, growing city... " ? there's the predicament in a nutshell. Endless growth?

[DaveR]

By world standards, London is not a huge city either in population or land area terms, and the trend is towards bigger and bigger 'metro areas'. It's been said loads of times (and is obviously true) that economic growth in other UK cities/regions should be one of the most effective brakes on runaway house prices in London and the SE, as well as being a good thing in itself, but don't hold your breath of that. It makes sense to plan for London getting bigger, and we are in danger of going the way of Paris - the city proper is full of expensive low rise period properties and the outer suburbs are full of tower blocks and modern developments of varying degrees of awfulness/dullness.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> With properties being bought and left empty and relatively low price elasticity due to latent

> demand from a huge overseas market, I would say it broadly is. Out of interest, do you support

> deregulation of the housing market?

As DaveR said, what you are talking about is a very small percentage of home. As far as I can work out there are about 25000 homes empty in London (>6 months) of 3.2m houses. Now I'd like to see all 25000 of those homes back into use, but if you put them back tomorrow it would make negligible difference to the problem, if any at all. I want solutions, not gestures.

As far as deregulation goes, what do you mean? Deregulation how?

[Earl Aelfheah]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the focus should be on trying to ensure that the planning system manages

> the process effectively i.e. development in the

> right place, good quality buildings, and

> minimising disruption for residents - all pretty

> basic things.

>

> Arguing about regulation of the property market is

> a red herring.

Eh? Isnt' the planning system managing the process also known as 'regulation'.?

[Earl Aelfheah]

As soon as people start banding around insults such as 'smug lefties' I stop taking them seriously.

[DaveR]

"As soon as people start banding around insults such as 'smug lefties' I stop taking them seriously...."

....I settle into my easy chair, open the Guardian, and start deciding what's wrong with the world.

[DaveR]

"Eh? Isnt' the planning system managing the process also known as 'regulation'.?"

No, not in the sense being used in this thread, most obviously by you. In case you've forgotten, you said:

"The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society."

and

"or you regulate the market to ensure that London remains a diverse, characterful and vibrant city"

The function of the planning system is not to regulate the property market, although it can obviously have an impact.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't get the difference.

"The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society"

for example, through section 106 orders, rules around the number of affordable properties within a development, impact on the local character of the area, considerations of parking, minimum building standard to ensure health and saftey. These are all part of the planning system - rules which are there to ensure that we see developments achieve the things that we as a society consider important.

[DaveR]

I don't want to make this very tedious, but when you say this:

"I strongly believe in the power of markets and incentives. However, I am not a market fundamentalist and neither is any serious economist. The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society"

the strong suggestion is that you are talking about direct market intervention e.g. price/rent controls, measures to restrict buy to let, foreign buyers etc, which are nothing to do with the planning system. Also, the examples you give are classic planning functions, but not really to do with "regulating the market" at all. Providing for affordable homes affects the market, but does not regulate it.

NB - the quote from you above "I am not a market fundamentalist......The housing market needs to be regulated....." is a trademark non sequitur. All you need to say is "I believe the housing market needs to be regulated" Then we can disagree unambiguously.

[Earl Aelfheah]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism

"Providing for affordable homes affects the market, but does not regulate it."

[Loz]

I think you are being a little purposefully obtuse, RRR. DaveR is talking market regulation and you've conflated it with planning regulations.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't mean to be obtuse. I genuinely don't see how the planning system and affordable housing quotas are not considered regulation.

[Loz]

But DaveR is talking about the stuff BNG mentioned and you supported - namely "rent controls, protected tenancies, limits on buy to let, restrictions on foreign buyers, penalties for empty properties and more". No one except you has mentioned planning regs - we have those in place, they are generally fit for purpose and there is still a crisis. I'm not sure why you've raised it, unless you think they should be changed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Forgive me, I really don't want to get into a long winded debate about this, but I thought the whole thread was about planning regulations / objections and the fact that some posters suggested (perhaps implicitly) that they rules should be relaxed to allow significantly more houses to be built. In other words a relaxation of planing regulations. My contention was that a less regulated market is not desirable and will do little to address the affordable housing crisis. Regulation, including planning controls are more likely to increase the supply of (specifically) affordable housing.

[TJ]

Actually, my whole point was for local residents to stop being so obstructive, argumentative and complaining about every single change that anyone proposes.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Forgive me, I really don't want to get into a long

> winded debate about this, but I thought the whole

> thread was about planning regulations / objections

> and the fact that some posters suggested (perhaps

> implicitly) that they rules should be relaxed to

> allow significantly more houses to be built. In

> other words a relaxation of planing regulations.

> My contention was that a less regulated market is

> not desirable and will do little to address the

> affordable housing crisis. Regulation, including

> planning controls are more likely to increase the

> supply of (specifically) affordable housing.

[KalamityKel]

TJ Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, my whole point was for local residents

> to stop being so obstructive, argumentative and

> complaining about every single change that anyone

> proposes.

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Forgive me, I really don't want to get into a

> long

> > winded debate about this, but I thought the

> whole

> > thread was about planning regulations /

> objections

> > and the fact that some posters suggested

> (perhaps

> > implicitly) that they rules should be relaxed

> to

> > allow significantly more houses to be built. In

> > other words a relaxation of planing

> regulations.

> > My contention was that a less regulated market

> is

> > not desirable and will do little to address the

> > affordable housing crisis. Regulation,

> including

> > planning controls are more likely to increase

> the

> > supply of (specifically) affordable housing.

I guess anyone would have issues understanding anyone else opposing something until it effects them directly...

That being said I doubt many who do object to planning applications, especially the ones you've identified, can be rightly accused of only objecting just for the sake of it (my interpretation of your points) or that they are afraid of "change".

[BrandNewGuy]

TJ Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, my whole point was for local residents

> to stop being so obstructive, argumentative and

> complaining about every single change that anyone

> proposes.

Such as building a house in a back garden? Are you OK with that? If not, then there are presumably valid reasons for objecting to certain developments. Or shall we just build, build, build?

[Loz]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That being said I doubt many who do object to planning applications, especially the ones you've

> identified, can be rightly accused of only objecting just for the sake of it (my

> interpretation of your points) or that they are afraid of "change".

... then these was this thread, where some people didn't like the thought of the industrial warehouse on CPR being knocked down to build houses!

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1464013,1465130

[KalamityKel]

I did say "I doubt many" Loz not ALL ;-)

[MarkT]

I oppose any application that is against current planning policy.

Under Southwark's policies the whole of Dulwich is designated "Suburban Zone". The zone titles and definitions come from the London Plan. The Suburban zone is defined as 2-3 storeys in height with housing densities limited to a maximum of 350 habitable rooms per hectare with lower density limits set according to the Public Transport Accessibility Level. The London Plan states that developments should satisfy all the other policy requirements while keeping within the density limits. That includes the provision of affordable housing. The London Plan states "Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted."

Southwark's Policies also clearly prohibit new building on previously undeveloped back gardens.

The Southwark Plan is currently under review; the first stage in the consultation was earlier this year. Anyone who wishes to change the policies should engage in that process.

The review of policy includes several long periods of consultation. It gives an opportunity for every aspect to be examined in public. Every interest group can have their say, the developers; the political parties; transport providers and users, historians, environmentalists; education and health providers, shoppers and commercial providers etc. The resulting policies can then take a balanced account of every consideration, to provide for general community needs. Everybody is then supposed to follow the policies.

Planning applicants focus only on the issues that support their case. When they push for higher densities, taller buildings, inappropriate change of use, building in green spaces etc, the planning decision makers are under continual pressure to not only stretch policies to the limits, but to permit clear breaches in policy. The system is not supposed to be based on precedent, but inevitably it is.

There is a surprising number of supporters to the inoffensive little house proposed in the previously undeveloped back garden to 51 Crystal Palace Road. I wonder how many of those are applicants in waiting for other gardens in the neighbourhood, determined to establish a precedent.

I think the planning officers and councillors involved in the decision making need continuing support from the community in upholding planning policies, and objectors balance the applicant's spin with all the other considerations such as pressure on infrastructure and environment.

Anyone who thinks the policies need changing should engage in the consultations. In the meantime, the London Plan definitions have been recently re-affirmed; the Draft New Southwark Plan maintains the designation of East Dulwich as Suburban.

MarkT