Forum Topic

Affordable housing is defined by the Government as :Affordable housing is social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. From April 2012 affordable housing is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (prior to this the definitions in Planning Policy Statement 3 apply).Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing. Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as ‘low cost market’ housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes.

Adam Beamish ● 4462d

The short answer Raymond is that matter such as you describe (vortices etc.) are not "material planning considerations".  Environmental considerations are, but only so far, e.g. odour and noise nuisance resulting from a take-away etc.  You allude to this yourself by talking about structural matters - such matters are nothing to do with planning.What I don't think people realise is that planning applications now are far more complicated than at any time previously.  Thirty years ago I could apply for planning permission for 25 houses with just a couple of plans, a two page covering letter and an application form.  Now its a plethora of mandatory supporting reports produced by experts, and a big part of my job is coordinating all those experts to get reports commissioned and finalised in order to enable me to submit an application.To be honest, I actually think the current system has become far too slanted in favour of Councils, e.g. Councils being able to insist on so many complex reports before even validating an application.Thus I actually find it refreshing (albeit typical of the Coalition's lack of a coordinated approach) that the imminent relaxation of planning controls for converting offices to residential units will give Councils very little control.  Although it is absurd that such conversions, which can only be considered by Councils on traffic, contaminated land and flooding grounds, will still be the subject of a statutory public consultation exercise - which will be utterly pointless given that 99% of the public are not qualified highway consultants, contaminated land experts or flood risk consultants, so whatever the public write won't be able to be taken into consideration, hence the entire consultation exercise is a complete waste of time and resources.

Adam Beamish ● 4464d