Back in 2015 it was estimated that balcony requirements in Auckland added $40,000-70,000 NZD in extra costs per unit which is straight up insanity. And at least the weather is nice enough there that people might use them!
Section 106 planning gain obligations to force the building of 'affordable' housing is the most insane thing about a planning system that provides a lot of examples of insanity. Rather than actually freeing up the supply of housing so it is affordable for all (like bread), the supply is throttled and then a bribe is extorted from the economic rents received by developers.
Most houses that people actually want to live in were built before 1947, when the Town and Country Planning Act passed into law. Imagine if most people preferred to drive a car built in before 1947 rather than a modern one.
A large part of the problem with trying to legislate away any possible conflict with neighbours over externalities. If my neighbour wants to build a big rear extension, I might be unhappy, but there is no mechanism through which he and I can come to an agreement whereby I accept some sort of compensation, probably financial, for the loss of my amenity.
Coase pointed out that if the costs associated with coming to an agreement over this compensation were low, there would be a large social gain, and got a Nobel prize for doing so. Sadly, no town planner has ever heard of Coase, or, frankly has any understanding of economics whatsoever.
Some very interesting arguments. On ‘externalities’ borne by future owners, could widespread market supply failures justify restricting owners’ actions on this basis? If housing is so constrained and people are so in need of housing that a poorer quality house won’t decline in value nearly as much as in a competitive market (and so costs are not well internalised), then it seems to me that regulation has a potential role to play in improving social welfare. This seems particularly relevant for rental properties where many landlords famously take the piss.
So the way to deal with this is to sack half of the planners and specify that all planning applications must be dealt with in six weeks from date of submission, with a default of "approved".
That way we find out what we really want planners to do.
Thanks but could part of the UK problems reflect private developments being required to include social housing which (at least initially) is not allocated through the private market? Ronan Point and the Grenfell Tower were disasters visited on people who effectively had at best very limited options if they wanted to refuse being house there. At least some of the issues you criticise reflect those and linked problems with social housing. Such arguments continue today for example around windows currently being installed in the Chalcot's towers and the balance between how they should open, preventing people potentially falling out, and enough ventilation to prevent overheating. Conversely, some selfish London developments have been by the NHS seeking to expand sites so they can be operationally acceptable at the cost of depriving neighbouring properties of light, producing increased traffic with street parking requirements and multiple basements to house equipment producing radiation with subsidence consequences.. And, there can be no assurance that the NHS will not eventually move even more of the sites and co-locate with even larger future hospitals and replace what exists with overdevelopment.
Back in 2015 it was estimated that balcony requirements in Auckland added $40,000-70,000 NZD in extra costs per unit which is straight up insanity. And at least the weather is nice enough there that people might use them!
Section 106 planning gain obligations to force the building of 'affordable' housing is the most insane thing about a planning system that provides a lot of examples of insanity. Rather than actually freeing up the supply of housing so it is affordable for all (like bread), the supply is throttled and then a bribe is extorted from the economic rents received by developers.
Most houses that people actually want to live in were built before 1947, when the Town and Country Planning Act passed into law. Imagine if most people preferred to drive a car built in before 1947 rather than a modern one.
A large part of the problem with trying to legislate away any possible conflict with neighbours over externalities. If my neighbour wants to build a big rear extension, I might be unhappy, but there is no mechanism through which he and I can come to an agreement whereby I accept some sort of compensation, probably financial, for the loss of my amenity.
Coase pointed out that if the costs associated with coming to an agreement over this compensation were low, there would be a large social gain, and got a Nobel prize for doing so. Sadly, no town planner has ever heard of Coase, or, frankly has any understanding of economics whatsoever.
Some very interesting arguments. On ‘externalities’ borne by future owners, could widespread market supply failures justify restricting owners’ actions on this basis? If housing is so constrained and people are so in need of housing that a poorer quality house won’t decline in value nearly as much as in a competitive market (and so costs are not well internalised), then it seems to me that regulation has a potential role to play in improving social welfare. This seems particularly relevant for rental properties where many landlords famously take the piss.
So the way to deal with this is to sack half of the planners and specify that all planning applications must be dealt with in six weeks from date of submission, with a default of "approved".
That way we find out what we really want planners to do.
Maybe houses should be able to have single aspect if they have aircon?
To be honest apartments probably should have aircon these days.
Thanks but could part of the UK problems reflect private developments being required to include social housing which (at least initially) is not allocated through the private market? Ronan Point and the Grenfell Tower were disasters visited on people who effectively had at best very limited options if they wanted to refuse being house there. At least some of the issues you criticise reflect those and linked problems with social housing. Such arguments continue today for example around windows currently being installed in the Chalcot's towers and the balance between how they should open, preventing people potentially falling out, and enough ventilation to prevent overheating. Conversely, some selfish London developments have been by the NHS seeking to expand sites so they can be operationally acceptable at the cost of depriving neighbouring properties of light, producing increased traffic with street parking requirements and multiple basements to house equipment producing radiation with subsidence consequences.. And, there can be no assurance that the NHS will not eventually move even more of the sites and co-locate with even larger future hospitals and replace what exists with overdevelopment.
A balcony in a flat can often be a bad thing as your neighbours stand on their balcony and smoke and fill your flat with tobacco or cannabis fumes.
(Happened to me - amazing that £250k does not buy you a flat in a cheaper area of London without the risk cannabis fumes)