Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6670577.stm
As if things weren't complicated enough!
As if things weren't complicated enough!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New planning regs
- Thread starter Nemesis
- Start date
"Plans to cut red tape to make it easier in England to build home extensions are expected to be announced"
You just know, don't you that this means the complete opposite will happen - it's like when a football team announces that it has complete faith in it's manager - he might as well be getting his coat on!
You just know, don't you that this means the complete opposite will happen - it's like when a football team announces that it has complete faith in it's manager - he might as well be getting his coat on!
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I read it as an attempt to make things less complicated, but Shelli has a good point.
I suspect one of the big driving factors for the increase in house extensions is the cost of moving homes these days, particularly the stamp duty tax payable. In many cases, it is cheaper (or at least comparable) to extend than to move house. This also exacerbates the ever-increasing house prices.
I suspect one of the big driving factors for the increase in house extensions is the cost of moving homes these days, particularly the stamp duty tax payable. In many cases, it is cheaper (or at least comparable) to extend than to move house. This also exacerbates the ever-increasing house prices.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
It's a consequence of land prices I guess. Not only are new houses seemingly crammed onto plots with tiny gardens but properties with large gardens are often divided up and new houses built as 'in-fill'.
Again, I think the planning rules encourage this because it's much easier to get planning consent for in-fill compared with a piece of land outside the building line of an area.
Again, I think the planning rules encourage this because it's much easier to get planning consent for in-fill compared with a piece of land outside the building line of an area.
One could argue this will give planners more time to consider and reject overly ambitious projects that will have an adverse effect on the property or neighbours. However the cynic in me suggests this is an attempt to enable the government to avoid red tape when they wish to build affordable housing on green fields. And I know the cynic in me is often closer to the truth than the optimist!
Suffice to say no schemes by the government improve life for individuals; rather them improve life for the developers making a fortune in the name of affordable housing.
Suffice to say no schemes by the government improve life for individuals; rather them improve life for the developers making a fortune in the name of affordable housing.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
We don't need a lot more housing and to hell with what it's like and where it is put. There must surely be some planning brakes?
The idea that we need vast swathes of new housing is the simplistic solution which will of course benefit those making a profit from them.
The idea that we need vast swathes of new housing is the simplistic solution which will of course benefit those making a profit from them.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I'd like to agree with you but, rattling about in a large house with empty bedrooms, I'm not sure I can make a good case. When everyone has as much space as I have, I might justifiable call 'Enough!'.Nemesis said:We don't need a lot more housing...
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Of the 'to hell where it goes and what it is like' variety... you missed that part out.
Possibly you could build a housing estate or two on your land?
We also have a great deal of stuff which could be brought back into use standing empty, much of it towns above shops.
Nice however to see Titanic Mills, a long time SAVE BaR, is finally nearing completion.
Possibly you could build a housing estate or two on your land?
We also have a great deal of stuff which could be brought back into use standing empty, much of it towns above shops.
Nice however to see Titanic Mills, a long time SAVE BaR, is finally nearing completion.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Oh no. Not In My Back Yard.Nemesis said:Possibly you could build a housing estate or two on your land?
Hmm, there again, could be a nice little earner.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2084053,00.html
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
>We don't need a lot more housing
There's no shortage of people looking to buy, so I guess they think we do. Grownups living with their parents as well.
Britains excessive housing prices also seem to suggest supply is well below demand.
> and to hell with what it's like and where it is put.
Well, we do have a whole framework of legisltation to prevent that situation
> There must surely be some planning brakes?
I believe there are, yes. Far too many as well.
> The idea that we need vast swathes of new housing is the simplistic solution
It'll certainly solve a lot of peoples problems. Thats why theyre buying after all.
> which will of course benefit those making a profit from them.
Yes, as well as benefitting the buyers. Do you think the building trade is somehow wrong?
NT
There's no shortage of people looking to buy, so I guess they think we do. Grownups living with their parents as well.
Britains excessive housing prices also seem to suggest supply is well below demand.
> and to hell with what it's like and where it is put.
Well, we do have a whole framework of legisltation to prevent that situation
> There must surely be some planning brakes?
I believe there are, yes. Far too many as well.
> The idea that we need vast swathes of new housing is the simplistic solution
It'll certainly solve a lot of peoples problems. Thats why theyre buying after all.
> which will of course benefit those making a profit from them.
Yes, as well as benefitting the buyers. Do you think the building trade is somehow wrong?
NT
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Clearly your local authority is much better than mine at preventing unsuitable developments in unsuitable locations.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Interesting reading:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC_SCP_report_2007.pdf
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2084053,00.html
Particularly the Pathfinders stuff.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC_SCP_report_2007.pdf
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2084053,00.html
Particularly the Pathfinders stuff.
Nemesis said:Interesting reading:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC_SCP_report_2007.pdf
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2084053,00.html
which amusingly talks of "areas of 'severe' water stress in the south-east,"
The existence of pro and anti camps doesnt prove much, there are always organisations with agendas.
Particularly the Pathfinders stuff.
I think we all agree pathfinder is a problem, but clearly not one caused by the legislation under discussion.
I for one am very glad to see the govt do something positive for once.
NT
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Sorry NT - it's nothing very positive - getting rid of a layer of planning controls (weak as many are) isn't going to add up to much as far as I can see except make yet more of a mess of our environment.
However, if that's what you want... bring on the new runways and to hell with everything else!
I think that the point of those reports is to draw attention to the fact that planning is a complex business and plonking new housing down wherever (as you seem to be suggesting is a good thing) isn't creating viable and sustainable communities. Pathfinder is relevant as it's about demolition rather than refurb and retaining existing communities and the fabric of existing buildings.
However, if that's what you want... bring on the new runways and to hell with everything else!
I think that the point of those reports is to draw attention to the fact that planning is a complex business and plonking new housing down wherever (as you seem to be suggesting is a good thing) isn't creating viable and sustainable communities. Pathfinder is relevant as it's about demolition rather than refurb and retaining existing communities and the fabric of existing buildings.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Oh - the SDC is the government’s independent watchdog on sustainable development. Certainly an organisation with an agenda (actually organisations without agendas would be a tad pointless...).
ilikecobwebs
Member
- Messages
- 91
- Location
- Bristol, UK
I also fail to see why we need so much new housing. A fair amount of the demand is caused by families splitting up......Father and child A move into a house and Mother and Child B also move into a house, thereby creating two families from one. Then you've got the population all moving around, wanting the plum jobs in the Southern part of the country, so immediately someone screams that there aren't enough houses in that particular area. (And what happens to the houses they've just moved out of, I wonder?).
Then you've got immigration....they all want houses....simple answer there is to stop immigration.
Our population is supposed to be getting older, on average. If that is so, then many larger properties will eventually be vacated, as people trade down or eventually pass on to the highest abode of all.
And what about property investment? Landlords who hold, in ownership, a dozen or so houses and offer them only for rent are effectively blocking people who want to actually purchase.
House prices are pushed up by these "shortages" but I read somewhere a while back that developers are actually sitting on a "landbank" already....they have land ready to develop but are just slowing down the whole process, to make prices go up.
Back-land development was rife in the 70's, and again people are now being made to feel guilty about owning large gardens. There's nothing more sad than seeing a rest-haven buried under concrete for a new bungalow.
People will now hang onto their houses because its so expensive to move, what with house-packs, stamp duty, and all the rest. You can't blame them for staying put. If the costs of moving house were eased, then maybe there would be more to go round.
I reckon, if the government could get its way, it would have us all living in flats. Just think, all that vertical living on a small footprint. I doubt, though, that the councils would make the flats all Band A for council tax!
Then you've got immigration....they all want houses....simple answer there is to stop immigration.
Our population is supposed to be getting older, on average. If that is so, then many larger properties will eventually be vacated, as people trade down or eventually pass on to the highest abode of all.
And what about property investment? Landlords who hold, in ownership, a dozen or so houses and offer them only for rent are effectively blocking people who want to actually purchase.
House prices are pushed up by these "shortages" but I read somewhere a while back that developers are actually sitting on a "landbank" already....they have land ready to develop but are just slowing down the whole process, to make prices go up.
Back-land development was rife in the 70's, and again people are now being made to feel guilty about owning large gardens. There's nothing more sad than seeing a rest-haven buried under concrete for a new bungalow.
People will now hang onto their houses because its so expensive to move, what with house-packs, stamp duty, and all the rest. You can't blame them for staying put. If the costs of moving house were eased, then maybe there would be more to go round.
I reckon, if the government could get its way, it would have us all living in flats. Just think, all that vertical living on a small footprint. I doubt, though, that the councils would make the flats all Band A for council tax!
Bring back regional aid/redistribution! I think the pressure on housing in certain parts of the country is bad and is not a sensible path to go down.
I did enjoy it when I heard somebody on the radio announcing that "planning decisions were being taken out of the hands of ministers and given to an independent committee".
I thought our planning was plan led, based upon the work of elected councils and then tested in public enquiries? Even ministers are elected - unlike the "great and good" ( :roll: ) who will no doubt come to the fore.
I did enjoy it when I heard somebody on the radio announcing that "planning decisions were being taken out of the hands of ministers and given to an independent committee".
I thought our planning was plan led, based upon the work of elected councils and then tested in public enquiries? Even ministers are elected - unlike the "great and good" ( :roll: ) who will no doubt come to the fore.