To Dream The Impossible Dream

[nosmallp]

The planning system sucks. My company is about to move to a new office which has half the number of parking spaces required, because that is what the planners insist on. The fact it is in the middle of nowhere and public transport is rubbish is irrelevant, half the employees are going to park on the local residential streets.

Why are you moving to an office in the middle of nowhere, with no public transport.

Move to a small town/city which has decent public transport.

The planners are enforcing government policy, so try directing your anger at the gobsh*tes in Westminster.

[PunK BeaR]

Oh things get built alright, just not by the "little people".

The large housebuilders, although they moan continually about the planning system, are the ones who get their land zoned in the plans for housing as they have the political and financial clout to do so. Really makes them a cartel on housebuilding in this country allowing them to produce rubbish and make sackloads of profit. Just a bit of stinker for them when house sales drop but our govt are trying to their best to change this.

Large govt projects or developments which govt has an interest are also get pulled from the standard planning system and are dealt with by central govt usually to be approved. Wait and see what happens with these nuclear power stations proposed. Any public opinion will be ignored and they will put them where they want. Its just the usual govt double-standard at work again.

Edited May 13, 2009 by PunK BeaR

[Injin]

Why are you moving to an office in the middle of nowhere, with no public transport.

Move to a small town/city which has decent public transport.

The planners are enforcing government policy, so try directing your anger at the gobsh*tes in Westminster.

That doesn't make any sense.

If someone pucnhed you in the mouth because his mate told him to - who is responsible for the punch?

[MarkG]

Why are you moving to an office in the middle of nowhere, with no public transport.

I would imagine because it's close to where people live, nicer than a city office and significantly cheaper. Obviously in your world people must submit to the Glorious People's Planning Committee to ensure they live in a Soviet-approved manner.

Move to a small town/city which has decent public transport.

There's no such thing as 'decent public transport'. Sure, perhaps if you happen to work a mile down a main road from where you live you might be able to get by taking the bus -- at least until you get laid off and your next job is eight miles in the opposite direction in the next town -- but for the vast majority of people public transport is slow, expensive and ******ing shitty, and it will always be that way until there's a form of 'public transport' you can get on outside your door at any time of your choosing, travel from where you live directly to where you want to go, and not have to pay through the nose for.

The planners are enforcing government policy, so try directing your anger at the gobsh*tes in Westminster.

Yes, 'we were only obeying orders'.

[bearbullfence]

Oh really? Let me count the ways that planning laws are demonstrably better. Without using a search engine or Wikipedia why don't you tell us when these laws came into effect, and give us 10-20 reasons why the situation is demonstrably better without resorting to cliche.

I completely agree. There should be no planning laws. BTW, I'm building a rendering plant on one side of your house and a smelt works on the other.

[kingsgate]

That's because there isn't much horse in agriculture these days. We don't eat them, and they don't pull implements. I would guess that if you wanted to do either of those two things, you could probably be classified as agriculture,

Peter.

Yeah, but horses look pretty agricultural, and that should be what matters. Perception is reality.

Animals, in fields, grazing.

What does it matter what species, or if we eat them or not, really?

[Imp]

I like the old fashioned approach, if you like the view out of your back windows, then buy it. If you can't/won't buy it then don't begrudge people who do buy it and use it for what they want.

[LiveAndLetBuy]

I think every farmer should have the right to secretly erect buildings of their own design behind large haystacks. It's obvious really. Can't see a problem at all.

[nosmallp]

I would imagine because it's close to where people live, nicer than a city office and significantly cheaper. Obviously in your world people must submit to the Glorious People's Planning Committee to ensure they live in a Soviet-approved manner.

If it's in the middle of nowhere it cannot be close to where people live.

There's no such thing as 'decent public transport'. Sure, perhaps if you happen to work a mile down a main road from where you live you might be able to get by taking the bus -- at least until you get laid off and your next job is eight miles in the opposite direction in the next town -- but for the vast majority of people public transport is slow, expensive and ******ing shitty, and it will always be that way until there's a form of 'public transport' you can get on outside your door at any time of your choosing, travel from where you live directly to where you want to go, and not have to pay through the nose for.

There is decent people transport where I live, but I choose to live in a city, not some backwater with a weekly bus service.

Yes, 'we were only obeying orders'.

Planners have no choice but to obey the rules. If you don't like them try to get them changed.

[frozen_out]

I completely agree. There should be no planning laws. BTW, I'm building a rendering plant on one side of your house and a smelt works on the other.

That's fine. I'm not sure how the lorries delivering your raw materials and picking up your produce are going to get to and from your factory though. It being in the middle of the field where I was free to build my house. You could pay to build a proper road so the freight drivers will come to your factory, but it would probably be cheaper just to build your factory near other factories, where the infrastructure is already in place. Wouldn't it?

It;s amazing how people insist we need planning laws. Apparently without them people would just roll up and build 6 bedroom detached houses at the end of your driveway and cities would 'become' an unstoppable sprawl.

For some reason people just won't accept that if you had the choice of building anywhere you probably wouldn't do it at the end of your neighbours garden and that people had to actually be forced to live in cities once upon a time.

[EUBanana]

Its always the excuse for any law. No planning laws? People start shrieking about how everybody will have a sewage plant at the bottom of their drive and a nuclear power station behind their house.

What rubbish.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Wouldn't an actual house look better than a mobile home?

I'm in a minority, but I think if someone owns land they should be able to do what the hell they want with it providing it doesn't cause mayhem for the neighbours.

I completely agree with this.

As long as what a person does on their land (including putting buuldings on it) does not obstruct natural light to their neighbours, does not cause excessive background noise for their neighbours and does not cause an increased risk to health and safety to their neighbours, then the state should keep it's f*cking nose out of it.

The reason it does not, is becase we can't be having people acting outside of the rules now can we.

Rules that were set up for the landed rich to maintain their priviliged position.

It stinks. I say this irrespective of this personality of the actual individual involved in this case. He may or may not be an idiot

The principle still stands

Edited May 13, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Telometer]

Until 10,000 people want to build houses on th eoutskirts of a tiny village, and the infrastructure is not up to it.

Generally, though, I agree planning laws should be laxer. Problem is, a one-off relaxation in law would give a one-off uplift in value to land for the then landowners.

[EUBanana]

Until 10,000 people want to build houses on th eoutskirts of a tiny village, and the infrastructure is not up to it.

Yeah, but thats a reason why they won't. Those 10k houses won't pop up all at the same time.

Those New Towns are soulless, dead places. It sure wasn't planning officials who gave Britain's towns a pub and an offlicense on every other street, judging by what the New Towns look like.

[Imp]

Until 10,000 people want to build houses on th eoutskirts of a tiny village, and the infrastructure is not up to it.

Generally, though, I agree planning laws should be laxer. Problem is, a one-off relaxation in law would give a one-off uplift in value to land for the then landowners.

That's really simple to counter. Most of the infrastructure has been privatised, so you ahve to pay for a new gas, electricity, water connection.

So the first 50 people to build have an electricity installation cost of £1,000.

The local substation is now at its capacity, so the 51st person pays for an upgrade at a cost of £40,000

This is good for the next 200 houses, but at that point the substation and HV grid need upgrading at a cost of £200,000.

This provides a natural barrier to excessive building.

[Della]

Yeah, but thats a reason why they won't. Those 10k houses won't pop up all at the same time.

Those New Towns are soulless, dead places. It sure wasn't planning officials who gave Britain's towns a pub and an offlicense on every other street, judging by what the New Towns look like.

Well if you were to think about it you would realise that it was some government planner in some department that OKed these pubs and off licences as they need a license to exist. If you don't like the look of new towns then you don't like the look of the results of the planning process, you can't say you need a planning sytem to stop the like of that because the look of a new town is a direct product of the planning process.

[EUBanana]

you can't say you need a planning sytem to stop the like of that because the look of a new town is a direct product of the planning process.

I know, thats why I brought it up.

[kara gee]

Planners get paid to approve bland mediocrity. Anything different, or better, is rejected.

Building regulations deal with safety and should be kept.

The planning system sucks. My company is about to move to a new office which has half the number of parking spaces required, because that is what the planners insist on. The fact it is in the middle of nowhere and public transport is rubbish is irrelevant, half the employees are going to park on the local residential streets.

+1

I had a recent planning experience which proves the above.

I was interested in a plot of land with a 1950s, leaky, un-insulated, rotten and ugly brick bungalow on it. The house was small but had been allowed permitted development which meant the downstairs could be extended by a third. I asked the planning dept if I could remove the old rubbish property and build an off-grid straw bale house in situ, guess what? Computer says NO!!!

[Dangerous Woman]

+1

I had a recent planning experience which proves the above.

I was interested in a plot of land with a 1950s, leaky, un-insulated, rotten and ugly brick bungalow on it. The house was small but had been allowed permitted development which meant the downstairs could be extended by a third. I asked the planning dept if I could remove the old rubbish property and build an off-grid straw bale house in situ, guess what? Computer says NO!!!

Planners are by and large morons, although there are some notable exceptions that prove the rule. They are not supposed to have any design input but they just can't help themselves. Wannabe architects, most of them, who couldn't get a place in architecture school. Just like Hitler, really.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Inquiry hears farmer's castle battle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29914876

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDUGaRRUQCI

He's back !!

Funny, In the BBC vid he looks like a Status Quo fan, but obviously isn't

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdo0oU2SIhQ

Edited November 5, 2014 by Saving For a Space Ship