Planning restrictions haven't been relaxed that much. Despite what the Torygraph says, the green belt is still protected.
'Planning free-for-all'? If only.
- Thread starter tony1851
- Start date
Planning restrictions haven't been relaxed that much. Despite what the Torygraph says, the green belt is still protected.
*Householder detected*
You know what, this is a **** **** excuse (your house once sat on countryside). We could as a country come up with sensible ways to build housing on brownfield and some greenbelt.
But every single householder seems to get nimby fever when they move in, meaning the only people who can afford to lobby for new-build are "Barrett" type developers and the rich, further worsening the situation as everyone hates that ****, and so we end up with barrett estates and pokey flats being built, rather than sensibly planned otu large flats or housing built in a sustainable affordable manner.
This is what your "save the country" attitude gets you.
Yea, those horrible nasty tories, they should know better, only the baby boomer generation and the rich deserve housing, everyone else can go **** themselves and live in pokey flats.
Whatever happened to 'localism' and 'local' people deciding what happens in their areas?...
In this case, **** the locals.
Every single one of them fights every single new house being built, and 100% of the time they use the same formulaic responses Ohhhh traffic/full schools/strain on services.
Screw the lot of them the selfish asses, I bet not one single one of them would fight new build if they lived in ****ty flats, with their parents or renting with no hope of ever buying.
Perhaps he'd rather have his parents.
They're already spoken for by the Roma Gypsies!
Well I live in one of these allegedly desirable villages washed over by green belt. As I see it, the major barrier to sensible development (which I support) is the greed of the developers. Sensible development is what the existing planning rules allow - and in fact it seems the planners around here are prepared to ignore these rules if pressured to do so by developers.
These large house builders are essentially land speculators who have made some bad bets over the last few years. I have no sympathy and we shouldn't be relaxing rules purely so they can make a profit when they should really be going bankrupt. That would release their land at sensible prices for other (hopefully) smaller outfits to take up, develop, and provide employment and reasonably priced homes.
There was some cheap land made available in the village recently for affordable housing development for people with a local connection. All good stuff I say. This place is filling up with old crinklies on public sector final salary pensions, the only people who can afford to live here, we need some young blood. This never got off the ground because the developers couldn't make enough cash - they walked away.
Plenty of land in this country to develop on, the developers spurn it because it's not profitable enough. This is the problem, not planning.
These large house builders are essentially land speculators who have made some bad bets over the last few years. I have no sympathy and we shouldn't be relaxing rules purely so they can make a profit when they should really be going bankrupt. That would release their land at sensible prices for other (hopefully) smaller outfits to take up, develop, and provide employment and reasonably priced homes.
There was some cheap land made available in the village recently for affordable housing development for people with a local connection. All good stuff I say. This place is filling up with old crinklies on public sector final salary pensions, the only people who can afford to live here, we need some young blood. This never got off the ground because the developers couldn't make enough cash - they walked away.
Plenty of land in this country to develop on, the developers spurn it because it's not profitable enough. This is the problem, not planning.
No mate, you miss the point.
Our planning system is so anti development, that only the "big greedy" developers can afford to jump through all the hoops (or a few rich people who can afford self build).
So we need to make planning much more simple to reverse this situation, tighter planning rules only mean more "Barrett" type construction. You may argue the loosening of the regs is flawed in many ways, I may agree, but we DO need to loosen regs unless we want nothing but Barrett homes.
But who sold them that land?
Again, local authorities have a habit of selling of large plots, rather than small or individual plots, and who can afford large plots.
Again those big greedy developers.
Let me guess, as above I assume the council made this land "available" as a large plot, the kind of plot only big boy developers can afford who's whole business operandi is to knock up houses for the most money they can get.
The problem is further exasperated by councils insisting these big developers pay all kinds of "community taxes" to build roads or schools or parks or whatever, well guess what, that's just slapped onto the price of the housing.
So I guess wrong, which village is it, what was the size of the plot (or was it plots), how much where the plots sold for and to whom?
If the parents have got any sense they'd leave them to anyone but the troll...
If the parents have got any sense they'd leave them to anyone but the troll...
Hello fellow troll, you seem to follow me quite avidly.
Would you like to subscribe to my twitter account?
ellal";p="2719197 said:The obvious problem with that is people are basically very selfish. People campaign and put a great deal of energy into gettting what they want but once they have it everybody else can whistle. They should remember that their lovely fluffy edge of town 4 bed houses, gardens laid to grass with views across the countryside, were built on green fields - the very same green fields in fact that the sanctimonious little ****s are now claiming to be our heritage.Whatever happened to 'localism' and 'local' people deciding what happens in their areas?...
The fact is that some green field development is inevitable if we are going to get anywhere near alleviating the housing shortage. The priority should remain brown field and regeneration but that won't be enough on its own.
I live in a small village,own a field and would have no qualms about building on it.My house is the last in the village and the field would be an infill between me and the village.I know if i apply for planning i would upset the people opposite who have a nice view across to the mountains but there is a real shortage of affordable housing where i live because people like me (English) have moved in and helped push house prices beyond the reach of locals who only earn a basic wage and i am thinking of offering it for local affordable or even social housing I would make a few ££'s out of it and it would help a few locals get a roof over their head. View media item 59058
I would make a few ££'s out of it and it would help a few locals get a roof over their head. View media item 59058Similar threads
