Don't plan for your future

What would you build if there were no planners or building control to dictate the dos and don’ts of building? Do you think you would consider the effect of your creation on those around you? As an architect, would the vision and the dream become the overriding impulse, with little to no consideration of the impact your architecture exerted on others?

Curiously, after only nine months out of university in a practice, I have to ask myself: is there an alternative to planning? I often find myself considering how this alternative reality might function, however pie in the sky the prospect.

Let’s suggest for a moment that in this fictional, non-planning world, the majority of precautions designed to make our homes and work places safe still remain, but the restrictions on size and aesthetics are gone. Would people build what they wanted? Would we forget to consider our neighbours and build anything we pleased? I doubt it.

Economics would put a halt to the most outlandish ideas long before pen hit paper.

What would result though, in my opinion, would be an end to the messy way in which we extend our houses - we would extend the entire roof, rather than whatever shape we could cram our 40% PD allowance into. Logic would prevail, and out of fear of our neighbours adding ludicrous and overbearing extensions to their properties, we would self regulate the way we developed our homes. This idea that we could govern our own property development seems reasonable – ethical and moral conduct would largely outline acceptable behavior, limiting our ability to cause damage, giving us the freedom to add spaces to our homes to suit our needs rather than to the policy outlines from Whitehall.

Much like in the medical establishment, planning could work on the basis that the process is self governed until such time that the established moral/ethical guidelines appear to be broken – “your extension is fine, the 10-storey addition to your semi isn’t”. At this point, perhaps there could be scope for grievance resolution, as with medical malpractice.

Inevitably, such a system would have its faults to begin with, but with the possibility of your neighbour building a more garish development, the process would become regulated entirely by itself. A house is still an investment, and anything that would devalue our properties would be of interest to no one. We would develop a system of assumed acceptability. Neighbours would perhaps work together, to ensure renovations fulfilled the homeowners’ criteria without affecting those around him. Streets and towns would develop cooperatively, neighbourly. In essence, a planning free system would offer us everything the localism bill promises, but won’t deliver.

The planning system is imperfect, and the localism bill won’t address these concerns in any meaningful way. Perhaps it’s time to give homeowners control over their own properties? Just a thought.

Read more: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/5016594.article?origin=BDdaily#ixzz1JJWPli6f