'Planning free-for-all'? If only.

[tony1851]

The Daily Telegraph continues its campaign against development.

This time, they are complaining that an extra 25,000 homes were given planning permission last year, as though that was a bad thing.

So far as middle England is concerned, it seems that views of countryside out of windows are more important than people having somewhere to live.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ha...s-for-planning-war-over-new-developments.html

 

[AronSearle]

Basically there are two key problems with the UK.

People who already have houses don't want "their fields" built upon.

Local authorities encourage "Barrett" type building, rather than selling of small plots, nobody wants Barrett estates and so every development is hated by those that already have houses, and grudgingly sought after by those without.

Personally I would forcefully evict anyone who has a house and objects to new houses being built, stick em in pokey flats and see how quickly they change their minds!

 

[chapeau]

So far as middle England is concerned, it seems that views of countryside out of windows are more important than people having somewhere to live.

It is if it's your view, and you aren't going to change that.

 

[noseall]

The ironic thing about more housing is that it is only those who already own a house that can afford to buy one.

 

[chapeau]

That's because builders reckon they should be paid more than they're worth and won't get out of bed for less

 

[tony1851]

The reason houses are so expensive is that demand outstrips supply.

And why is housing in such short supply? Answer; the restrictions imposed by the planning system.

It's all very well people in Arts-and-Crafts - style houses with nice views in southern England telling the rest of us that we should live in urban flats, or housing built on brownfield sites. Let them try it.

Most people want to live in ordinary houses in the suburbs, and greenfield development is often the most cost-effective solution. So what if a few great-crested newts get swept away? What's more important - people or wildlife?

 

[JBR]

I look around and see plenty of 'brown field' sites.

I believe we should not build in the countryside until all the land that is currently being wasted is put to good use.

And that includes these damned waste-of-space windmills!

 

[chapeau]

People demand houses with nice views, then once they have moved in immediately demand that's the last one to be built in their area.

 

[ellal]

I look around and see plenty of 'brown field' sites.

I believe we should not build in the countryside until all the land that is currently being wasted is put to good use.

If you add to that the empty properties held by speculators the housing problem would be very much alleviated...

Of course that might halt/reverse the house price rises which would of course affect those that run things in UK plc...

 

[joinerjohn]

Nimby's the lot of em.

 

[tony1851]

It's true that there are many empty houses up and down the country.
But they are often in places where people don't want to live, eg ex - council sink estates.

 

[ellal]

It's true that there are many empty houses up and down the country.
But they are often in places where people don't want to live, eg ex - council sink estates.

So it's better we build houses on green fields that nobody can really afford?

Our Town has approx 900 empty homes in residential roads, and also many flats above shops that will never be occupied again going begging for redevelopment...

But hey, the landlords get their subsidies so nothing will change...!

 

[AronSearle]

So it's better we build houses on green fields that nobody can really afford?

Don't forget the community levy tax coming in that will make them even more "affordable".

 

[tony1851]

So it's better we build houses on green fields that nobody can really afford?

They're expensive partly because of the high cost of land, which is a result of planning restrictions.
Even if developers get p.p. for some houses, there are usually a whole raft of regulatory requirements which add considerably to the builder's costs.

During the latter half of the 1930s, there was a house-building boom which genuinely stimulated the economy.
The present Government seems to think that if they stimulate house-building today, this will similarly improve the economy.
But they've overlooked the one big difference between then and now: the dead hand of Planning Restrictions.

 

[ellal]

But they've overlooked the one big difference between then and now: the dead hand of Planning Restrictions.

Or as some might look at it preservation of the countryside...

But don't worry - those planning restrictions have now been 'relaxed' due to developers swelling the nasty party's coffers...

Whatever happened to 'localism' and 'local' people deciding what happens in their areas?...