justthisbloke

You may remember that I've got a long term watch on Cambridge; particularly 3 bed flats. Eights Marina[1] has been interesting recently. About a year ago, a 3 bed penthouse sold for £575k. The neighbouring flat is currently under offer at £525k despite being bigger, better and recently refurbished. Shame the market's so dicey just now; it's just the sort of thing I'm after - but not enough to lose quarter of million on (or whatever the drops turn out to be). [1] any thoughts on that location? OK, it's next to the bridge and gets flooded but it's convenient yet slightly out of centre.

The lights are already being turned off all over the country. It started round here a couple of years back and a quick google for news stories shows that a selective lights off between midnight and 5am policy seems to be not at all uncommon any more.

For those with money, a recession is bloody good time to be spending it. I'm in the midst of planning a major refurbishment to the house and reckon that about 9 months from now will be the time to place orders and get quotes. Of course, I won't be putting money down upfront unless it absolutely cannot be avoided.

Two thoughts on planning and villages. I grew up in a small village in the 70s/80s and it was a different world then. Despite being just 10 miles from a city, the village was inaccessibly remote for most people. Agricultural mechanisation meant there was no longer demand for hordes of workers and the combined effect was semi dereliction. On the main street alone, there were half a dozen abandoned and ruinous houses. And everything was cheap as chips. But, and despite being eye-achingly pretty, it wasn't the sort of place where people chose to live. As you can imagine, it's a bit different now. "Sought after village location" in estate agent jargon with eye-watering prices to match. What changed? Cars. Or rather mass ownership of them. I doubt 2 car families were common in the 70s. And multiple car ownership is a pre-requisite of rural life - if you want work, education, entertainment, commerce etc. Now 2, 3 or more cars per household is not uncommon even in cities. Combined with cars being cheaper these days, it makes a sort of sense to live in rural idyll and work in town. It's an utterly unsustainable model, of course. When peak oil kicks in (whenever that is; 2015 or 2050) and the economics of car ownership revert, so will villages. All this talk of supporting rural populations is cobblers; it make no financial or environmental sense to run buses through miles of rural roads to service the same number of people as would be achieved with a 100 yard suburban street. Same logic applies to shops, pubs, schools, libraries - without sufficient population density, the maths (financial, environmental or social) simply doesn't stack up. Population densities. Brings me on to planning. There's someone here, I've noticed who seems to hold the planning system accountable for all ills and seems to call for abolition of the green belts and for free expansion. In other words, the American model. We would be utterly fcked if we ever allow that to happen. Had the Town and Country Planning Acts not been implemented, we'd be living in a low density city from the Peterborough to the South Coast. And, as has been demonstrated in the US, it wouldn't even have saved us from speculation driven HPI.

They won't like this bit. If they're doing their job.

When I say we loved living in a flat, I was talking about a flat. You know, with bedrooms, passageways, halls, a kitchen etc. The things built over the last 4 years were not built as dwellings they are simply tulip bulbs in bricks and mortar. Designed to be bought and sold, flipped and speculated upon. Please do not confuse these with residential accommodation.

Before we had kids we lived in a flat in London. We had none of the problems some people seem to fear; the flat was as quiet as the grave - not a sound from neighbours. As everyone else has pointed out, we had everything on our doorstep; shops, pubs, cinema etc. It was an utterly brilliant way to live. Then, planning to have children, we moved to the country. I grew up in the country and thought it'd be the sensible thing to do. It's nice place; big isolated house, rambling garden with several lawns, orchard etc - just like where I grew up. But, you know, it's crap really. Where we used to no cars, we now have one each. It's a drive just to buy a pint of milk. And forget having a beer or two; the taxi'll cost £20 to get you home - if you can get one, that is. Office culture is crap. No ad hoc after work pub visits as everyone drives to the out of town business park. It's not even that crime-free here. Big solitary houses are targets of crime in a way that equivilent value flats are not. And I don't think the kids are hugely benefiting. They have no friends nearby and there's nothing for them to do. In town, there are cinemas, museums, shops, buses to friends etc. Here there's nothing. Just like when I was a kid. Don't get me wrong, I love the country but I don't need to live here. You can get out and into it as much as we do by using a bus. We'll be back in town one day, I suspect.

Not the case since 1932ish. Winston Churchill was worried that if "road tax" continued to be ring fenced for road funding then a perception would evolve that the streets were only for cars. So he changed it. VED is no more invested in roads than beer tax is invested in pubs or ciggy tax spend on tobacco plantations.

Blanket speed enforcement by cameras everywhere would do wonders for co2, energy conservation and road death. Bring it on, I say. OTOH, I can't say I'm overly bothered about taxes on drivers of big cars. I own a bike and see every penny raised off a fat car owner as a penny less raised through my income tax.

Use the tax scheme and you'll get a bike half price; no income tax, NI or VAT. A chap in the office was talking about fuel tax, saying "the government is treating us like mugs". Looking at his thirsty motor and his 3 mile commute, I decided he was living up to their point of view rather well.

No - the best thing about petrol and diesel taxes are that they are the easiest taxes to avoid. Ride a bike. Walk. Sure, there's an element of fuel tax on goods that are transported but it's an insignificant amount compared to the VAT or the income tax originally paid on your spend. I'd far rather have more tax on fuel and less on income. Of course, I'd rather have less tax full stop but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Bear in mind that Environment Health are a separate department to Housing. If want the council to help rehouse you, you need a dialogue with the latter. Bringing in the environment guys to back up your position will help but the dialogue has to be primarily with Housing.

Portsmouth's a pretty good place to live, all in all. Sure, it has its dirty and its dark sides but that's the nature of cities they tend to full of people - not all of whom live life in the way that you or I do. Being on an island, it's very compact. This means it's never a hassle to get around. It's well connected - just over an hour to London (shame that Eurostar moved from Waterloo, though). Soton airport is handy and the continental ferries are on your doorstep. There's good employment - certainly compared to some places. If you like easy access to the countryside and open space or enjoy sailing or beaches, it's pretty ideal. OK, it's not perfect and the city council really needs to get its act into gear and sort out the old Tricorn site and work out how to undo the damage of the 60s/70s philosophy of running dual carriageways through town. Overall, though, it's a quality city that has retains character.

Exceedingly unlikely to get permission in these sort of areas. The only legit way[1] I recall (and there was talk of this loophole being closed) is to build a mansion. It's very rarely used (I've only seen it happen once). It dates back to, possibly, the original planning Acts when rural areas became protected. Someone pointed out that a characteristic of the English countryside is the grand houses and that future interpretations of the county house should not be forever ruled out. And so, under very strict criteria for architectural significance and scale, a clause was included to allow rural development of very big houses. As I say, though, it's been used only a handful of times. [1] And planning authorities will have seen every trick in the book.

An outline permission just means that there are still matters to be decided. Outline permissions are often sought for, say, siting and access. If granted, the details to be decided later are "reserved matters", say, design, landscaping etc. Some applications for outline permission will cover a lot of matters while some will be for the bare minimum. Planning cttees are sometimes wary of very sketchy outline permissions and it's easier to asuage concerns if more issues are included.

Agreed. I hardly watch any TV these days - I can't remember the last time. And this prog reminded me why. It was so shallow, empty and devoid of any thread, analysis or even connected narrative. Those here over about 30 may remember the 1970s toddler-TV prog, "Playschool" and the "through the round window" 3min mini-documentary on "how milk bottles are filled" or "how smarties are made" etc. Well, it seems they've taken the concept and re-labelled it The Money Programme: here's a man buying a gold coin; here's a big mining truck; here's a man trying to lift some gold. A string of barren 3 minute clips which had some tenuous connection to gold but were in no danger of ever making a point or demonstrating any analysis.

On this, we probably agree. Small government with efficiently delivered services that are valued by the people is something we probably both support. When I mentioned "often getting a battering when discussing planning", it's more to do with my views on densification and design. I don't think PPG3 etc went far enough. We never achieved the quantum leap in densities and quality of design that some areas (the cities) really need. Instead, we're stuck with a few "iconic" developments of FTB heaven surrounded by Poundbury look-alike semi-suburbs. And while we've created picture postcard faux villages, we've not managed to build truely integrated communities; work and shops remain in "business parks" and out-of-town developments while our town centres struggle. The point I was trying to make re s106 on extensions is that it's not a bad principle. While a single house being extended and converted into an HMO may have minor impact on services, the sum across a planning district is not insignificant. Someone has to pay and I don't see it as wrong that the first port of call should be the developer rather than the neighbours. Of course, the s106 agreement must be reasonable and genuine but that's built into the s106 process. While a council can set a guideline of £x per bedroom, it can by no means enforce it. An additional bedroom to a family home will pay very little or nothing while more significant intensification of use should incur more. PS. I don't work for any council, quango or government agency.

The built environment is my passion but not my profession. Re: the battering. I get this everywhere where planning is discussed.

Agreed. I'm looking for an example where an administration has significantly reduced tax take during its time in power. I'm coming to the conclusion that it's a rather rare occurrance. I don't think even Mrs T managed. Agreed. Agreed. And it's up to you and me and us to challenge where we can. Hard to say. First you need to define "infrastructure" - people seem to mean different things when they use the term; road, rail, schools, doctors, police, sewerage, water, fire etc etc. Then you need to work out the funding authorities in each case. Then consider that we run a hugely multi-tiered local government system. It's a nightmare. You obviously have an opinion on immigration - an opinion I suspect I don't share. However, at the risk of thread drift, I'll respond. In planning terms, immigrants are treated just the same as everyone else. If someone wants to turn a family home into an extended HMO to house immigrant workers then the usual planning process applies and this would be a good example of where s106 for a bedroom would be very sensible. If someone wants to just live in a house, the planning system couldn't give a monkey's where they happen to have moved from. Is it a stealth tax or a means of avoiding increases in general council tax? I am familiar with one County Council. For years the local planning authorities used s106 agreements for a very limited range of costs - namely roads, affordable housing and public open space. Basically, the districts used s106 to meet their costs but the County Council never bothered. Last year the CC realised it was utterly skint while at the same time having to accommodate the added costs of tens of thousands of new homes. They could no longer balance their budget without whopping increases in the Council Tax. They looked at other means of raising the revenue that they could use instead of increasing council tax. It didn't take much thought to identify s106. Which from now on (I think; not sure if it all went through) will cover not just a contribution for roads but also for schools etc. This was a clear example of a targeted tax on the cause of the problem to save the resident taxpayer from the burden. It was not a stealth tax.

Back to the original point. If you don't want the developer to pay for infrastructure improvements, who do you think should pay instead?

We're talking local govt here. Local councils are usually much closer to the electorate than cent gov. There a lot of well run, low overhead councils around so don't lump all "government" together. On the topic of S106, the good thing about local govt is that you can usually go along and speak as a member of the public at the point that policy is being made. If, for example, you think it's a better policy to have low S106 and higher council tax then you are well positioned as Joe Public to have your voice heard at local level. And when a lot of voters turn up with an opinion, most councillors listen (which may or may not be related to the fact that most of 'em have majorities in double or single figures).

Intensification comes in many forms - not just more people. But wasn't that the idea behind the poll tax; people use council services, therefore tax people. I think we've moved on a bit from and attempt to target specific actions/behaviours that cause the burden on services. Indeed. There are two aspects to the govt spending debate. Firstly, how much should be spent and, secondly, how should it be raised. Most people want less to spent - at least on wasteful inefficiency and the sort of projects that get the Daily Mail readership hyperventilating. Consider nirvana where there is small government, no waste and all taxes are productively spent on projects that have 100% of the population. Even here, there are still taxes that need to be levied. IMO, it's best, in as far as is possible, to make the user of a service or the causer of an expenditure be the one who pays. In the case of development, until S106 came into force, a developer could walk away with his profit and leave the resulting infrastructure improvements to the locals. That was plainly unjust to the taxpayer residents. Eh? Are you saying I live off taxes? That I'm unemployed? A teacher? A doctor? You're way off beam, if that's what you're saying.

Section 106 agreements. Nothing wrong with these; you turn an empty space into a block of flats and then the local community needs to spend cash on roads, schools etc etc. Surely better that the developer cough up for this than the taxpayer next door who would rather the place had never been built. OK, that's the logic for new builds and hard to argue with. I've not come S106 used for intensification of use (ie extensions etc) but the logic seems identical and pretty sane to me. Of course, you may say "but my 1 bed extension is not going to add any stress to the local infrastructure". In that case, argue the point. Each S106 /has/ to be based on genuine impact. If it isn't then a planning inspector can overturn it.

So has that one sold, then? I'm watching this sort of place as part of my long term strategy. When the sprogs have buggered off to uni in 10 years time, we'll need a much smaller pad than we've now. Problem is that these places (top location, good reception rooms, penthouse, 3 bed apts) only come on the market once in a blue moon. If the right place comes up at the right place, I'm even prepared to become a BTL-er until I need it.

I saved thousands per annum by getting rid of my car. Used to drive an E Class Merc (new every three years) and now ride a bike. Lord knows what I was spending on depreciation/insurance/fuel/etc but it was significantly more than my commuting costs these days (3-in-1 oil hasn't one up /that/ much, really). In truth, the reason for making the switch wasn't financial. It was more that I was turning into a Fat ******* - too much work, not enough sport. If my experience is anything to go by, a lot of people will look back positively at being "forced" out of cars by high fuel prices. They'll be both healthier and richer and will discover that one's commut can be an absolute hoot.