Latest news with #planninglaws
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Rayner urged to approve 30-metre wind turbines in back gardens
Would you install a wind turbine in your back garden? Email money@ * Angela Rayner has been urged to allow homeowners to install wind turbines the size of Christ the Redeemer in their back garden. Current planning laws restrict small-scale wind turbines to 11.1 metres in height (36.4ft), but the MCS Foundation, the industry's accreditation body, wants the limit to be tripled. It is calling for turbines to reach heights of 30m (98ft) to allow more communities to harness renewable energy from wind. The request – branded 'outrageous' by Reform UK's Richard Tice – comes after the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) announced plans to make it easier for homeowners and businesses to install turbines. Under permitted development rights, only those with detached houses can install small-scale 11m machines on their property. But this could be opened up to millions more households if rules are loosened to include different types of housing. MCS said it welcomed the proposal but also wants the Government to increase the height restrictions to 30m and blade dimensions to 8m. Garry Felgate, chief executive of the foundation, said taller turbines would be 'unobtrusive'. He said: 'Thirty metres is just over the height of an average oak tree. 'Raising the maximum height restrictions at the same time as extending development rights could help many more rural communities harness renewable energy from wind. 'In particular, rural businesses, farmers and community energy groups could benefit from the lifting of restrictions. 'We also welcome the Government's plan to consult on extending small-scale wind's permitted development rights so that it is not only detached properties that can benefit, but a wider range of homes and businesses.' Decisions on planning regulation changes come under the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), run by Ms Rayner. Permitted development rights allow homeowners to undertake building work without requiring planning permission. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, said his party would 'not tolerate' the introduction of 30m turbines – the height of Rio de Janeiro's Christ the Redeemer. It is also the equivalent of seven double-decker buses, and 1.5 times the height of the Angel of the North. Mr Tice said: 'Allowing the tripling of wind turbine heights in residential areas is outrageous. This relentless net zero push will trash property values and turn our towns and villages into industrial eyesores.' Statistics show that 3,400 detached homes have a certified wind turbine in their garden. Installations have slumped significantly in the past decade, after the Tory government stopped paying homes for selling excess wind power to the grid in 2016. Last year, there were just four certified installations across England. DESNZ said evolutions in onshore wind turbine technology and increased demand for small-scale onshore wind turbines 'may allow for an update' to planning laws last reviewed in 2011. A public consultation on loosening the rules will be launched by the end of the year. MCS argued that permitted development rights already allow for mobile phone masts to reach 30m in non-protected areas and up to 25m in protected areas, such as national parks. The foundation oversees the standards scheme which certifies the quality of renewable energy appliances – such as solar panels, heat pumps and turbines – across UK homes. Sonya Bedford, of law firm Spencer West, said increasing the size of small-scale turbines would be a 'welcome change'. She said: 'It's certainly not a step too far. In practice, the turbines will likely only be deployed in rural areas as they will have a better chance of unimpeded wind. 'I would, however, welcome the permitted right for commercial premises, as industrial estates can often be good sites for a wind turbine.' The National Farmers Union (NFU) also believes relaxed height restrictions would help make a 'significant contribution to self-sufficiency in energy'. Small-scale wind turbines are currently hard to come by as manufacturers rarely build smaller models. But should height restrictions be increased, it is hoped that demand will increase. However, property developer Harry Fenner believes there is 'no serious appetite'. He told The Telegraph: 'Most homeowners and landowners I speak to want planning certainty and the ability to protect the character of their communities. 'They aren't queuing up to install a turbine the height of a 10-storey building next to the rose garden.' The debate over increased height limits for residential turbines comes amid Ed Miliband's push for a wind power revolution. The Energy Secretary wants to expand the country's onshore wind capacity from 15 gigawatts (GW) to 29GW by 2030, with thousands of turbines poised to be built across the countryside. An MHCLG spokesman said: 'Wind turbines larger than 11m in height require planning permission from councils, and we are clear that landscape and visual impact must be taken into account in planning decisions.'
Reuters
6 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
In Australia's housing war, political shift picks newbies over NIMBYs
SYDNEY, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Australia's affordable housing push has arrived in the wealthy Sydney suburb of Mosman, where new planning laws now challenge longstanding resistance to development in the leafy area known for mansions and sweeping harbour views. State authorities in Sydney and Melbourne - Australia's two biggest cities - are stripping some planning powers from suburban councils, including ones like Mosman that have created national headlines over opposition to new housing from older, wealthier constituents. The broad policy shift comes as political deference to NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) sentiment gives way to demands for more housing from younger voters whose electoral heft now rivals the traditionally powerful baby boomer bloc. In Mosman, there are fears the reforms will ultimately alter the character of the suburb, which boasts natural beauty, high-end stores and a median house price of over A$5 million ($3.23 million). "We're surrounded by water with harbour views so there are people who are going to have literally millions of dollars knocked off the value of their property because their view will be blocked," said Simon Menzies, an elected Mosman councillor of 20 years. The new laws are designed to allow more housing at key transport and commercial hubs and give the New South Wales state government powers to override council objections to large developments. Similar rules to fast-track three-storey apartment blocks have been introduced in Melbourne's state of Victoria. Five kilometres from Mosman, a new metro line in the suburb of Crows Nest means the state government has given a 22-storey apartment building the green light, overriding years-long council opposition. In Mosman, objections from neighbours to one such proposal are already pouring in, but the council said there is little they can do about it. The government intervention tracks a broader international trend, particularly in high-demand markets like London and California where soaring costs have hampered home ownership for young people. Sydney's house prices have surged more than 30% over the past five years, outpacing wage growth. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns warns Sydney, the state's capital, risks becoming "a city with no grandchildren". It is already the second-most unaffordable city globally after Hong Kong. "Their narrative is get out of our way. We want to build as many homes as possible to enable young Sydney residents to buy their homes," said Kos Samaras, director at polling firm Redbridge. "I think the political ballast that was there to protect the interests of homeowners is now gone." Australia's sprawling cities are among the world's least densely populated and historically built to accommodate suburban aspirations of owning detached houses with large backyards, not apartment living. That has shifted in recent decades, particularly as waves of immigrants and students settle in high-rises around public transport hubs. The latest housing push is designed to fill in the "missing middle" - townhouses, terraces and low-rise residential flats, which typically meet opposition from councils. Research from the Productivity Commission showed industry is only building half as many homes per hour, compared with 30 years ago, hampered in part by approval processes that can stretch more than a decade. Federal Housing Minister Clare O'Neil said 40 years of state, local and federal government regulations have created an impenetrable "wall of bureaucracy" for anyone trying to build a house. "I think we've reached a tipping point here where the majority of our population are actually in housing distress themselves or are deeply concerned about the people that they know, especially that younger generation," O'Neil told Reuters. After her party's landslide victory in the May federal election, O'Neil is pledging "bigger and bolder" policies. A productivity roundtable this month presents an opportunity to remove some of those requirements, she added. The turnaround may have already started. Building approvals of apartments surged almost 90% in the first half of the year, driven by a 33% jump in New South Wales. Construction jobs jumped 20% in the three months to May and construction starts of higher density homes rose over 20% in the first quarter. Peter Tulip, chief economist at the Centre for Independent Studies, expects a substantial step-up in construction in New South Wales and Victoria from 2026 onwards. However, supply will still struggle to meet demand, pushing prices higher. Indeed, national home prices have hit fresh records each month, fuelled by rate cuts and the expectations of more to come. Justin Simon, chair of housing advocacy group Sydney YIMBY, said Mosman had great amenity and was exactly the sort of place where new housing was needed. "There is no way an ordinary person, essential workers, cleaners, nurses or anyone else could ever afford to live in Mosman and that is because for decades they have stopped new homes being built and we need to turn that around," he said. Some Mosman property owners impacted by policy changes are joining forces to sell entire blocks to developers, capitalising on strong demand for higher-density housing in the harbourside suburb. The first application under the new policy, for example, is a six-storey residential building near the main town centre, comprising 29 dwellings, most of which are the family-sized three-bedroom units Sydney lacks. Objections cited issues such as traffic, road safety, parking and privacy concerns, public submissions to the council showed. "These are mainly three-bedroom units, each with double beds, so the total number of eyes that will be looking into this area (my backyard) would be 110," said a neighbor of the development, who has lived in Mosman since 1999 and asked to remain anonymous. "If they're all occupied, it's 110 eyes looking every time I hang my underwear outside." While that local backlash could yet create wider pressure for the government, politicians for now are siding with what they see as demographic inevitability. "Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle - these cities aren't museums," said Paul Scully, New South Wales planning minister. "They need to grow and evolve and adapt and change in the same way our population changes." ($1 = 1.5482 Australian dollars)
Irish Times
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Couple fails to stop demolition of Co Meath home built in ‘wilful' breach of planning laws almost 20 years ago
A couple have lost a last ditch legal bid at preventing the demolition of their large Co Meath home built in 'wilful breach' of planning laws almost 20 years ago. There was 'no merit' to the appeals by Chris Murray and his wife Rose, Mr Justice Senan Allen said, when giving the three judge Court of Appeal 's judgment dismissing them. The appeals concerned an action that, while initiated in September 2022, was 'the latest battle' in a 20-year war about the fate of the unauthorised development at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan . It was, he believed, obvious to Meath County Council from the outset that the action and appeal were 'artifices calculated to postpone the evil day'. READ MORE After Mr Murray's 2006 application for permission to build a house on the lands was refused, the couple, 'undaunted, and in wilful breach of the planning laws', built a house anyway of about 588 sq m (6,220 sq ft), twice the size of the house for which permission was refused, the judge said. The council took proceedings in 2007 under the Planning Act and in 2017 the Supreme Court upheld High Court orders for the couple to remove any unauthorised development from their land. They were given one year to vacate the property. When that was not complied with, the council issued contempt proceedings in 2019 that settled in 2020 on terms involving the Murrays agreeing to vacate the property within two years to facilitate the council demolishing it. The council issued contempt proceedings in 2019 that settled in 2020 on terms involving the Murrays agreeing to vacate the property within two years to facilitate the council demolishing it Three days before they were to vacate, the Murrays issued a case against the council, claiming there was new evidence relating to land sterilisation agreements made by the previous owners of the land that invalidated the council's planning refusals. Last year the High Court granted a council application to strike out that case as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. In the Court of Appeal judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Allen said the couple built a 6,220 sq ft house without planning permission, 'well knew' they would need permission 'but hoped they would get away with it'. The Murrays claimed, as a result of actions, inactions and misrepresentations by the council, they had acquired a 'pig in a poke' title to the lands, he said. While a planning condition for a nearby residence stated an agreement sterilising (preventing) the lands from any other housing or non-agricultural development should be entered into – and the council relied on that in refusing permission to the Murrays – it was accepted no sterilisation agreement was ever entered. There was 'no justification' for contending the council misrepresented the case to the court, he said. The Murrays had not appealed the original permission refusal to An Bord Pleanála or sought to judicially review it, he said. They had had 'every opportunity' to make whatever case they thought they had; the courts had considered all they had to say but the Supreme Court had, in 2017, decided the house 'had to come down'. While they argued in this appeal that adequate account was not taken of their new evidence, there was no appeal against the High Court conclusion it would not have affected the original outcome. At the heart of their opposition to the council's enforcement procedures was a grievance with the refusal of their original planning application but, as a matter of law, that grievance was 'not justiciable'. Any infirmity in the original refusal could not conceivably have provided any justification for unauthorised construction of a house, still less one twice the size, he said. It was 'perverse' that the Murrays, having 'driven a coach and four' through the planning Act, were complaining the council failed 'to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures'. A 'so-called constitutional challenge' concerning the council's use of section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in its proceedings was unrelated to the new evidence, he said. The couple's fresh permission retention applications were not relevant to whether their proceedings raised a fair issue to be tried, he held. The couple had not identified any error in the decision under appeal, the court concluded.
Daily Mail
05-07-2025
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE 'Devastated' couple who spent £45k inheritance on building illegal log cabin in national park say they were 'led in blind' after council orders them to demolish it
A couple who cleared out their retirement savings to build an illegal off-grid cabin in one of Britain's most protected national parks say they are 'devastated' after planners ordered they knock it down. Andrew and Debbie Melbourne insist they knew 'nothing' and were 'led in blind' about planning laws preventing the construction of their 1,200 sq ft fully insulated spruce cabin which boasts stunning views over the South Downs. Following a complex planning investigation and abject fury from neighbours, the couple were pursued through the courts and now have two months to knock the vast single-storey structure down or face jail. Speaking to MailOnline at their now partially-dismantled cabin near Waterlooville, in Hampshire, Debbie broke down in tears as she said: 'It would have allowed us to foresee our dream. It was something for our boys and a legacy. 'Normal people like us don't know the laws of the land. At no point ever were we told about Article 4 restrictions or that this was in the national park.' Andrew, 56, a former music teacher, added: 'We were led in blind basically. It's absolutely devastating, we spent two years researching what we could and couldn't put on the land. 'There were no disclosures that we were on the South Downs National Park. If we'd known we wouldn't have bought it. Absolutely I regret it, I wouldn't have done it, I've lost all my inheritance through this. 'We've had loads of grief from the council, lies from the council. Half a dozen people up on the other side don't like what we're doing. I was a teacher in the area and they just want to discredit my name.' The couple purchased their half-acre plot on land off Lovedean Lane last year for around £20,000 before buying a German-made prefabricated log cabin online for £25,000. The site is one of over 80 individual plots on a controversial land banking scheme owned by Gladwish Land Sales, who once had their name emblazoned across a whopping 31 Non-League football teams and courted criticism in the early noughties through their fan-targeted matchday programme ads. The concept sees developers buy a field before dividing it into smaller parcels and selling those off to buyers who are often told they will get planning in the future which may not be granted. Andrew said he had never heard of land banking before and said he bought the land privately from the vendor. The dad-of-two, who plays the trombone in local Ska and Jazz bands, insists there were no disclosures on the plot being inside a National Park or it being subject to an Article 4, which removes permitted development rights which allow certain types of minor building works to take place. 'We had no idea we couldn't do anything on this land, we had no idea it was part of the South Downs National Park, the maps are quite ambiguous, they are not very clear,' Andrew added. A quick Google search of the South Downs National Park boundaries takes you to an interactive map titled 'Do I live in the National Park?', it shows the Melbournes' plot inside the boundary. Building began without planning permission in April last year and saw the couple level a vast area at the top of their plot where the cabin now sits. Andrew reckons they removed well over ten tons of mostly chalk soil. 'The whole idea was to start up a community garden, we wanted to put in the lodge so people could use it while working here,' Andrew claims. The cabin was up in five months and the couple say it would have been totally off-grid featuring a kitchen, office space, shower rooms, living quarters and a compostable toilet with its own on-site water supply. Despite the facilities to make the cabin habitable, the couple, who have lived in the area for 35 years, claim they had no intention of living in it. As the project progressed, trees were cut down and a garden which slopes down the hill towards a bridleway was created. Trees, shrubs and bushes were planted with the intention of creating a Japanese 'miyawaki forest' that would grow quickly into a miniature dense woodland. A road leading from an entrance gate up the side of the hill and to the cabin was also carved into the hillside without planning permission. It didn't take long before planners from East Hampshire District Council and the South Downs National Park Authority began issuing warnings and notices. Between September 2024 and February 2025 officers served a Planning Contravention Notice, two Enforcement Notices and a Stop Notice to the Melbournes. Despite multiple warnings, the couple 'ploughed on regardless', as one exasperated neighbour who looks out on to the 'eyesore' cabin, said. That neighbour, along with several others, had watched the 'upsetting' project unfold from their homes on Glamorgan Road, which overlooks the Melbournes cabin plot from an opposing hillside, and decided to take action. They added: 'We saw them clearing the site with a mini digger and thought, hang on? On the one hand they're claiming the land is for eco purposes and bee farming but then they're pulling down trees during nesting season. 'Every morning I make a cup of coffee, I look at that, I go to my office, I get up to get something, I look at that. I can't avoid it. 'They had a chance to engage in a process but they've just ploughed on regardless of the planning enforcement notices. Anyone in their right mind would have sought legal advice.' Another neighbour on the road said: 'The thing that galled us was that they were constantly ignoring the law, advice and notices they were issued. 'They could have gone to any one of the authorities for proper advice and they chose not to. 'Every time somebody spoke to them and tried to get to the bottom of what they were doing they seemed to change their story.' One lady who wished to remain anonymous alleged the couple had objected to people walking along the bridleway past the cabin. 'He's obviously tried to do that to stop people looking at what he's doing,' she claimed. Despite some objections, one local carpenter said he didn't think the cabin was that bad, noting: 'It blends into the landscape doesn't it? It's natural isn't it? But they didn't have planning, unfortunately.' The cabin was 80 per cent finished in May when the Melbournes, threatened with a High Court hearing in June, signed a legally binding contract agreeing to remove the building. As part of the agreement they were ordered to remove all materials, gates, fences and other forms of development, including the groundworks and paths they'd carved out of the landscape and return the site to its original condition. They were slapped with a £3,500 fine by East Hampshire District Council and told the cabin must be gone in 56 days or face a custodial sentence. The couple are in the process of dismantling the cabin and have already removed the roof and flooring. The Melbournes reckon they have lost well over £50,000 on the project and get emotional when asked about their next move. 'It was something for our boys and a legacy, it would've been great for our grandson,' says Debbie, as she wipes away tears after struggling to comprehend the situation. She added: 'We have got no savings left now, we invested in something we thought would be good for the community. It's been a complete nightmare. The plot is going on the market this week. 'We will recoup some money and maybe find another piece of land that's not in a national park.' Andrew added: 'We were going to retire but it's all gone sour.' Councillor Angela Glass, EHDC's Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement, said: 'We are delighted this legal agreement has been signed and we now expect the development to be cleared over the next couple of months. 'This is the culmination of many months of complex legal and enforcement work by our determined team of officers to reach this position. 'I want residents to understand that if people breach planning rules, then we have the means to take action against them.' Councillor Sara Schillemore, the local ward councillor for Catherington, said: 'Residents were appalled to see this unsightly structure being erected in one of the most picturesque and valuable viewpoints in East Hampshire. 'It's vitally important that we protect our precious landscape and residents will be thrilled to see the development removed. East Hampshire Enforcement Officers worked hard for many months to achieve this result, and I sincerely thank them.' Tim Slaney, Director of Planning at the South Downs National Park Authority, said: 'I'm delighted we've reached a resolution to this breach of planning that was harming this wonderful nationally-designated landscape. 'I would like to thank East Hampshire District Council which pursued this enforcement case with determination, making it clear we will not tolerate blatant breaches of planning.' The agreement sets out a 56-day deadline to carry out the work. Failure to comply with this type of legal agreement can lead to enforcement proceedings in the High Court which can lead to costly legal fees and even a custodial sentence.
The Sun
01-07-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Our neighbour built TWO new builds next to our quaint cottages – we'll buy popcorn & watch council rip them down
FUMING neighbours say they're ready to "buy popcorn" and watch if bulldozers tear down two newbuild houses built next to their home. The controversial semi-detached homes sprung up on the site of a former pub car park in Bradford, West Yorkshire. 4 4 4 But the properties, which one neighbour vehemently opposes, were built after their planning permission timeframe had lapsed. Now locals are demanding action over the development - which they claim towers over surrounding heritage cottages and damages the area's character. Residents have also called on council officials to make an example of developers who flout planning laws and later seek retrospective approval. Helen Naylor, 50, said: "People in Bradford build exactly what they like, when they like, how they like. And to hell with all rules and regulations. "The council needs to get its act together because in Bradford, nobody seems to care. "I think everyone around here has just had enough of it." The homes appeared in just under a year on the site of the long-disused pub car park in the Heaton area of the city, with one listed for sale online as a five-bedroom, three-storey property. Although permission was granted in 2015 for a modest development, residents claim that lapsed long before building began. Now, both homes face potential demolition if Bradford Council refuses to approve the scheme in hindsight. Neighbour Jane Loe, 68, said: "It's quite funny in a way, but also horrible for those who live here. "My neighbour and I said we're buying popcorn if and when they make them pull it down. "We're going to sit out here and laugh." Ms Loe, who lives opposite the new houses with husband Nick Swift, 76, has claimed that the final product looks even worse than the one that was proposed. She explained: "The original design was unattractive but what they've actually built is even worse." The developer, named in council documents as Amjad Yaqoob, reportedly believed the 2015 approval still applied when he purchased the land. He has claimed to have been unaware that the consent had lapsed. Bradford Council has confirmed that no valid permission was in place when the two homes were built. A decision on the retrospective application is expected in the coming weeks. Neighbours close to the new-build homes say they hope the council will take firm action. Mr Yaqoob, who runs a building company in Bradford, declined to comment when approached. However, architects working on his behalf told Bradford Council that there was "never any malicious intent to build something without approval", and claimed the development was "very similar" to the previously approved plans. The firm added: "The materials used are sympathetic to the area, and there are no additional issues of overlooking or overbearing. "We therefore feel the retrospective application should be approved.' The developer's agents, P.N. Bakes Architectural Consultancy, argue that the homes are "very similar" to the 2015 plans and say their client believed a "material start" had already been made. Bradford Council say enforcement action will be "reviewed" once a decision is made. A spokesman said: "Our Planning Enforcement Team have investigated reports of these works being carried out without planning permission. "As a planning application has now been submitted, the matter of enforcement will be reviewed once a decision on planning permission has been made, as is standard practice nationally." 4
