Building New Homes In Rural Villages To Be Completely Banned

[DeepLurker]

Apologies if this has already been covered...

Government plans to require 80-90% of local people to approve new building schemes in villages

I had read about the government's new plans to devolve planning down to local authorities, and to let them decide if they wanted to approve/block new developments. What I hadn't realised is that new schemes would require 80% approval by local people.

Now, in a democracy, 80% in favor is impossible - in fact, such a high percentage in favor of a single idea/policy/candidate is a clear indication of a banana republic. So in practice, new builds in villages would never get approved.

Comments?

[rolf]

Government pandering to the baby boomers once more to stay in power because that's all they need to do.

Fu*king NIMBYS.

I'm beginning to think the only thing that will ever save Broken Britain is a war. Bombing raids would be an opportunity to (re)build. The only problem is that many young people would die, thus increasing even further the ratio of baby boomers to everyone else.

[Tired of Waiting]

Apologies if this has already been covered...

Government plans to require 80-90% of local people to approve new building schemes in villages

I had read about the government's new plans to devolve planning down to local authorities, and to let them decide if they wanted to approve/block new developments. What I hadn't realised is that new schemes would require 80% approval by local people.

Now, in a democracy, 80% in favor is impossible - in fact, such a high percentage in favor of a single idea/policy/candidate is a clear indication of a banana republic. So in practice, new builds in villages would never get approved.

Comments?

It may be worse: 80% of the registered voters.

If so, not even banana republics manage that. You would need a Hitler or a Sadam Hussein for that, really.

I heard this on BBC Radio 4 this morning, Today Program, (between 7 and 7;30, I think.) the chairman of a campaigning group for more rural housing saying that - twice.

He can't be right. This can't be.

Can it?!

.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[dissident junk]

Ahhhhh .... isn't there some incentive in terms of lowering council tax though?

So if you vote for a new development and it goes ahead, your council tax goes down?

[Timak]

80-90% public support required?!

All hail our new Tory overlords, they'll sort out the petty nimby-ism once and for all.....

[Lucifer]

Government pandering to the baby boomers once more to stay in power because that's all they need to do.

Fu*king NIMBYS.

I'm beginning to think the only thing that will ever save Broken Britain is a war. Bombing raids would be an opportunity to (re)build. The only problem is that many young people would die, thus increasing even further the ratio of baby boomers to everyone else.

Cameron has proved himself to be (as if we were expecting anything different) in the pockets of the bankers and a homeownerist.

I don't wish for a war, but like you I know believe the only way to build a fairer society is for the present one to crash completely so

that we can start again almost from the bottom up.

[wombat999]

Government pandering to the baby boomers once more to stay in power because that's all they need to do.

Fu*king NIMBYS.

I'm beginning to think the only thing that will ever save Broken Britain is a war. Bombing raids would be an opportunity to (re)build. The only problem is that many young people would die, thus increasing even further the ratio of baby boomers to everyone else.

BABY BOOMERS ARE MORE OF AN AMERICAN THING.THE DEMOGRAPHICS ARE NOT SO BAD IN THE U.K.

[lulu]

Ahhhhh .... isn't there some incentive in terms of lowering council tax though?

So if you vote for a new development and it goes ahead, your council tax goes down?

But I am sure the boomers will not care too much about that. They will more concerned about the plebs who may or may not wish to move into their area.

[Oh Dear]

What percentage of registered voters gave them a mandate for this?

[fluffy666]

Apologies if this has already been covered...

Government plans to require 80-90% of local people to approve new building schemes in villages

I had read about the government's new plans to devolve planning down to local authorities, and to let them decide if they wanted to approve/block new developments. What I hadn't realised is that new schemes would require 80% approval by local people.

Now, in a democracy, 80% in favor is impossible - in fact, such a high percentage in favor of a single idea/policy/candidate is a clear indication of a banana republic. So in practice, new builds in villages would never get approved.

Comments?

Our local representative, Mr Rees-Mogg (very C), elected by 40% of a 75% turnout, made stopping new housing development one of his planks. And now we have the ultimate Nimby's charter.

FWIW, I don't mind the idea of special heritage areas/SSSIs existing - but outside of such areas it should pretty much be you can do what you want.

[worzel]

Apologies if this has already been covered...

Government plans to require 80-90% of local people to approve new building schemes in villages

I had read about the government's new plans to devolve planning down to local authorities, and to let them decide if they wanted to approve/block new developments. What I hadn't realised is that new schemes would require 80% approval by local people.

Now, in a democracy, 80% in favor is impossible - in fact, such a high percentage in favor of a single idea/policy/candidate is a clear indication of a banana republic. So in practice, new builds in villages would never get approved.

Comments?

Maybe a bit of direct action required. A group of say 4,000 people could set up camp around a target village of a thousand people, they would then represent 80% of the population, and get the new building approved pretty pronto. Can you imagine the look on the NIMBYs faces when they rocked up with their caravans and tents. Get the houses built, some from the camp move in to said houses, and the camp moves on to the next village, and a few more wannabe FTBs join the group.

I cant see any problems with my idea.

[scepticus]

Comments?

its that big society thing isn't it?

[the flying pig]

Good, seems very sensible. Can't have horrible new houses spoiling people's view.

Whilst we're at it we should knock down all the houses that were thrown up in the 1960s housebuilding boom, the ones that the boomers live in now. We could compensate them by giving them back exactly what they paid for it, uplifted for general inflation.

[noodle doodle]

the bbc article says

"A Communities and Local Government spokesman said: "Since Community Right to Build schemes will not need to make a specific application for planning permission, it is right that any development would need the overwhelming support of the local community through a referendum. "

So this seems to be applying only to projects that wouldn't require planning permission, i.e. not your private housebuilder types, but to subsidised, council-at-arms-length style developments. I suspect in holiday home hotspots, the registered voter trick would be used to slap down the out of parish holiday home owners who can sometimes own more than half of a picturesque village e.g. Portinscale nr Keswick in Cumbria, so only 'real' locals would get the say.

Edited August 16, 2010 by noodle doodle

[Darkman]

Building projects that don't require planning permission?

Community Right to Build schemes?

What exactly is going on here?

[DeepLurker]

Building projects that don't require planning permission?

Community Right to Build schemes?

What exactly is going on here?

I'd like to find out too... I swear there was nothing about that when I first read the article!

In fact, it's already been changed twice today

[Tired of Waiting]

I'd like to find out too... I swear there was nothing about that when I first read the article!

In fact, it's already been changed twice today

Any written confirmation if it is 80% of all registered voters?

[Snugglybear]

Any written confirmation if it is 80% of all registered voters?

Well you'd have to be on the electoral roll for the electoral division, or you wouldn't be allowed to vote, would you?

That's presuming they have votes following normal procedures, e.g. local referendums, rather than just guessing what proportion of the local population is in favour. And I'm also presuming there will be some way of specifying "the local population" i.e. everyone who lives in sight of the village green, or everyone in such-and-such a parish or electoral ward, or anyone who doesn't live more than three fields away.

Does anyone know whether there's anything to stop second home owners putting themselves on the electoral roll at their second address? They'd have to give up their non-primary residence discount, where that exists, but might well think the cost worth it to stop houses being built, spoiling the character of the place and reducing the value of their houses.

Second home owners have already objected to the building of affordable houses in East Portlemouth in Devon and on the Llyn Peninsula.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

So this seems to be applying only to projects that wouldn't require planning permission...

The wording is ambiguous. The impression I get is that it is to enable building in cases where the local council refuses planning permission.

From the article:

the government's plans would enable villagers to form local housing trusts and build homes without seeking council planning permission, subject to the referendum results.

Does this just mean in cases where the council was never asked at all, or does it include cases where an application was made and turned down? Does this mean that if planning permission is applied for and refused, the scheme could not be authorised by a local referendum, but if one was never made in the first place, it could be?

In any case, the way I read it is that this doesn't affect developments that go through the planning process in the normal way, where the status quo would continue. Nor does it suggest that this could be used by locals to block developments that had got planning permission.

Edited August 16, 2010 by The Ayatollah Buggeri

[live in hope]

Government pandering to the baby boomers once more to stay in power because that's all they need to do.

Fu*king NIMBYS.

I'm beginning to think the only thing that will ever save Broken Britain is a war. Bombing raids would be an opportunity to (re)build. The only problem is that many young people would die, thus increasing even further the ratio of baby boomers to everyone else.

Its not necesserily baby boomers that will benifit here. Many of them have benifited from flogging back gardens. There are many types of ***** on these parish councils with vested intrests. Now they will hold the whip hand. Your right. Nothing will get built now. It will become a case more than ever of who you know.

[Timm]

Maybe a bit of direct action required. A group of say 4,000 people could set up camp around a target village of a thousand people, they would then represent 80% of the population, and get the new building approved pretty pronto. Can you imagine the look on the NIMBYs faces when they rocked up with their caravans and tents. Get the houses built, some from the camp move in to said houses, and the camp moves on to the next village, and a few more wannabe FTBs join the group.

I cant see any problems with my idea.

[Tired of Waiting]

Well you'd have to be on the electoral roll for the electoral division, or you wouldn't be allowed to vote, would you?

That's presuming they have votes following normal procedures, e.g. local referendums, rather than just guessing what proportion of the local population is in favour. And I'm also presuming there will be some way of specifying "the local population" i.e. everyone who lives in sight of the village green, or everyone in such-and-such a parish or electoral ward, or anyone who doesn't live more than three fields away.

Does anyone know whether there's anything to stop second home owners putting themselves on the electoral roll at their second address? They'd have to give up their non-primary residence discount, where that exists, but might well think the cost worth it to stop houses being built, spoiling the character of the place and reducing the value of their houses.

Second home owners have already objected to the building of affordable houses in East Portlemouth in Devon and on the Llyn Peninsula.

80% of registered voters, as opposed to 80% of votes cast!

That means that all voters who didn't vote, for various reasons (because they were ill, or travelling, or didn't care either way, or couldn't "bover") would be counted as against the new houses!

Got it?

[Timm]

The fact is that this policy is not finalised yet.

If you want to comment, you have until the 31st of August to do so:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1648333.pdf

[Timm]

Apparently this is the sort of thing they want.

(I got the link from the Communities and Local Government site).

http://www.stonesfieldcommunitytrust.org.uk/

[Tired of Waiting]

The fact is that this policy is not finalised yet.

If you want to comment, you have until the 31st of August to do so:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1648333.pdf

Thanks Timm.

In my humble opinion, the sensible range for debate would be between simple majority of votes cast, up to 60% or at most 2 thirds (66.6%) of votes cast.

I cant remember any democracy using more than 2/3 of votes cast for anything.