Fairly predictable, however most of the "mega" basements we are working on are tiny, and watch this space, the full weight of these ultra vires guidelines will come to bear.
If previous experience of "the borough that likes to say no" is anything to go by this will be interpreted it the most obstructive negative way imaginable.
A hollow victory for the nimbies.
Our experience of these guidelines, is whatever their original purpose, they are followed by a scope change on implementation that stops modest developments that were not the original intention. Residents who have been vociferous in driving these changes will find they have de-valued and restricted their own properties. Our practice currently has two live applications, which are for single basements that have been put on hold together with all the doubles and triples. Both would pass under the new guidelines but despite this our clients are being disadvantaged with an unnecessary delay. The loss of greening they say they are trying to control is already covered by by guideline insisting on a metre of soil over garden basements. On this and many issues planning departments are losing sight of their original purpose under the post war planning acts, in fact they should be re named "stopping departments" as they no longer plan or promote development.
ian Hogarth Hogarth architects
we are regularly faced with the nonsense of demolishing perfectly good buildings in order for client's to take advantage of zero vat on new build. There is a vast supply of existing buildings ripe for upgrading , but 20% vat is a major deterrent.
Zero percent for building on farmland makes no sense,and the only conclusion must be the influence of the major housebuilder's lobbyists, as against millions of unrepresented owner occupiers.
After years of vat relief being applied to alterations rather than repairs to listed buildings (Doh!) the government acted by moving all of it. Roll on twenty years and see the damage to our architectural heritage.
I have probably paid by DD for 30 years , this year
computer says "No"!!!
I was sent a reminder on Dec 31st,whilst I was climbing in the Anti-Atlas mountains. Our office manager is currently having to prove this was paid quite some time ago.
For an organisation already low on popularity, and of dubious benefit, a strange move. Karen Holmes should be removed not 6% of the profession !
Nice PR but way off reality in my experience.
We regularly work in all the central London boroughs, and some very difficult councils, dealing with far tighter land supply issues. Brighton planning on three occaissions have been a nightmare. We would definitely load a fee to work there again.
I have a developer client who has vowed never to set foot in Brighton ever again.
We spent two separate years negotiating schemes to the satisfaction of officers that then got overturned in the last week by a senior officer. This was a fairly modest sustainable house not in a cons area. One member of the committee asked "why has this scheme been recommended for refusal.
sadly we never got the chance to test the scheme at appeal as we were sacked by the client exasperated after two years of "negotiations"