Tim Miller Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) I spent a huge amount of money on a house with a lovely view. The view was factored into the price. I'll oppose any plan to build all over it.And I think that once you have property you'll do the same. I assume that none of you have any objections to loads of windfarms everywhere either? I did the same, bought a country cottage, paid far more for it, but I bought in a conservation area. I thus had good reason not to expect to big changes. If I bought with a nice view only, I would not like changes, but as said, I could not object, I don't own the view. It's the same with a sea view, anyone could build in front with a block of flats, not nice, but it happens all the time! So how would you feel if 5m new homes were built and prices dropped because there was now supply to meet demand? How would you feel if your house and everyone else's halved in value? I for one would be delighted, but would you? Any parent should be more than delighted. Edited July 16, 2009 by Tim Miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Steve Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Are you a middle aged NIMBY? That's the problem with people nowadays, everybody expects a lovely view outside their bedroom window, its crap, petty and a childish folly. And you probrably rarely really look at "your lovely View" for a long time and you begin not to apprieciate it over short period of time. If you want to see a lovely view get on your bike/walk and you will see one. And you don't necessarly have to see the same view all the time. We are never far away from the contryside and/or coast.I think wind farms are a nessary evil to produce green power. To be honest I'd build them off shore might be benificial in the long term. Middle aged - yes. NIMBY - yes I guess I am. Having had no view for decades living in London I feel justified in trying to protect a beautiful landscape for future generations. There are plenty of brownfield sites around here that should be regenerated first. I do indeed go walking to appreciate other wonderful views - it's part of our heritage. And something not to be given up lightly. Windfarms (onshore) don't produce anywhere near enough power for the hatred they engender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrillsBears Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 What I don't understand is the blank cheque being given on the basis that "Climate change threatens all of us" Does it? I don't think so. In fact it probably threatens the U.K far less than many other places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Steve Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I did the same, bought a country cottage, paid far more for it, but I bought in a conservation area. I thus had good reason not to expect to big changes.If I bought with a nice view only, I would not like changes, but as said, I could not object, I don't own the view. It's the same with a sea view, anyone could build in front with a block of flats, not nice, but it happens all the time! So how would you feel if 5m new homes were built and prices dropped because there was now supply to meet demand? How would you feel if your house and everyone else's halved in value? I for one would be delighted, but would you? I too live in a conservation area. If 5m houses were built and prices halved I'd be delighted so long as my view wasn't spoilt. The chances are that properties with a decent view would then command even more of a price premium and I'd be quids in. Plus my children could buy a nice starter home relatively cheaply once they are ready to leave home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Miller Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I too live in a conservation area. If 5m houses were built and prices halved I'd be delighted so long as my view wasn't spoilt. The chances are that properties with a decent view would then command even more of a price premium and I'd be quids in. Plus my children could buy a nice starter home relatively cheaply once they are ready to leave home. If you live in a conservation area you would be 99% safe. So you would love it for your kids as well, good. In order for this to happen, those 5 m homes have to go somewhere! My point is that the government should be strong, throw a dart at a map and get on with it. I feel sorry for kids to day, how much better for one and all to have cheap good housing. We have the land, less than 10% is built on and that includes roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impatient_mug Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I too live in a conservation area. If 5m houses were built and prices halved I'd be delighted so long as my view wasn't spoilt. The chances are that properties with a decent view would then command even more of a price premium and I'd be quids in. Plus my children could buy a nice starter home relatively cheaply once they are ready to leave home. Starter home? Due to planning regulations that's a 10m2 room in high density tower block built on polluted ex-industrial land in the middle of a god-awfull part of an over-crowded crime-ridden city. Try not to live on the lower floors as the gas leakage from the old rubbish tip could mean they smell a bit. Out of sight, out of mind tho I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Steve Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 If you live in a conservation area you would be 99% safe. So you would love it for your kids as well, good. In order for this to happen, those 5 m homes have to go somewhere! My point is that the government should be strong, throw a dart at a map and get on with it. I feel sorry for kids to day, how much better for one and all to have cheap good housing. We have the land, less than 10% is built on and that includes roads. We need housing. Where we need it IMO is in 2 areas: firstly rural villages within the village envelope or on immediate surrounds. Small scale builds to gradually increase the demands on the rural infrastructure. Use planning controls if necessary to allow only locals to buy (or give locals first refusal). secondly expand the existing market towns sensitively. I can see no reason to start creating whole new towns. Far too much infrastructure required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 When you buy property you obviously check out the local planning stuff. I took trouble to ensure that the likiehood of our view being spoilt was nigh on impossible. You cannot just trample over legislation just to suit yourselves. And there is the problem, right there. Planning laws. What garbage. It is sick, sick, that the government taxes the hell out of the poor and then uses their ill gotten proceeds to keep them in their rabbit hutches. In reality there's land for everybody, it's only the artificial scarcity imposed on us by the government that have us in this predicament. “Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.†The guy was onto something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Steve Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Starter home? Due to planning regulations that's a 10m2 room in high density tower block built on polluted ex-industrial land in the middle of a god-awfull part of an over-crowded crime-ridden city. Try not to live on the lower floors as the gas leakage from the old rubbish tip could mean they smell a bit. Out of sight, out of mind tho I guess Get your facts straight. Starter homes in my village are 2 bed houses with a small garden. Planning controls mean they can only be offered to locals initially (at 75% of market value). Personally I don't believe the 75% is helpful in a rising market as the rungs just get further apart but they are very popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SickofRenting Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Middle aged - yes. NIMBY - yes I guess I am. Having had no view for decades living in London I feel justified in trying to protect a beautiful landscape for future generations. There are plenty of brownfield sites around here that should be regenerated first. I do indeed go walking to appreciate other wonderful views - it's part of our heritage. And something not to be given up lightly. Windfarms (onshore) don't produce anywhere near enough power for the hatred they engender. I do sympathies with those caught up with the situation - it's either the land at the back of your garden or someone else’s, you can't have it both ways. Yes, plenty of Brownfield, trouble is there is still not enough to go round and most of them are tied up with property investors hoping to profit from them by holding onto them for years. We need to make compulsory low price purchases on these types of land from the prices there were designated as Brownfield/abandoned areas. And there's another problem that had blighted brownfields, developers creating rabbit hutch size properties no one wants to live in. I also heard that there are around 1 million empty properties that could still be made habitable - this would need to be looked at first. And the trouble with the growing population, people still need somewhere to live so it is inevitable that homes needs to be built on a conservation area one day, you can't keep everybody happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Miller Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Starter home? Due to planning regulations that's a 10m2 room in high density tower block built on polluted ex-industrial land in the middle of a god-awfull part of an over-crowded crime-ridden city. Try not to live on the lower floors as the gas leakage from the old rubbish tip could mean they smell a bit. Out of sight, out of mind tho I guess My thoughts exactly! We need quality HOMES with the right size rooms and gardens, especially for families to live in. We have so much land we do not need to knock down a detached house and squeeze several smaller ones in. I think that does more damage quality wise all round than choosing a area in the country and building on that. I ask you, why do we live in such crap conditions when we have the God damn land to build on, what are we saving it for, for the odd trip out? How about where we spend our non and in some cases working lives. It's nonsensical, it's a farce! Edited July 16, 2009 by Tim Miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Miller Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I do sympathies with those caught up with the situation - it's either the land at the back of your garden or someone else’s, you can't have it both ways.Yes, plenty of Brownfield, trouble is there is still not enough to go round and most of them are tied up with property investors hoping to profit from them by holding onto them for years. We need to make compulsory low price purchases on these types of land from the prices there were designated as Brownfield/abandoned areas. And there's another problem that had blighted brownfields, developers creating rabbit hutch size properties no one wants to live in. I also heard that there are around 1 million empty properties that could still be made habitable - this would need to be looked at first. And the trouble with the growing population, people still need somewhere to live so it is inevitable that homes needs to be built on a conservation area one day, you can't keep everybody happy. Music to my ears, yes compulsory purchase Brown and Greenbelt land. Pay the farmer say 10k an acre so he doubles the value of his land, we get an acre of building land which would provide decent plots at just 1k a time. I heard we have 1m vacant houses, trouble is, I have never seen them! Personally I would never interfere with conservation areas, we must keep our quality, we do have plenty of land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aa3 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Construction would be under way by 2016, later than originally envisaged... Well the unemployed construction workers only have to wait 7 years before their stimulus jobs come.. well if the projects don't get stopped by our out of control courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olebrum Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Eco Homes.......built on an old airfield, where the ground water is polluted due to the munitions dumped there after the war. Funny Edited July 16, 2009 by Olebrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.