Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
muggle

Planning Reforms: Blight Of The Builders' Charter

Recommended Posts

16061144.jpg

Planning reforms: blight of the builders' charter

The Coalition’s controversial planning changes could lead to more than 1,000 extra “major developments” being approved every year, Whitehall documents suggest.

That could mean an extra 3,000 acres of land being built on every year in England as a result of the reforms. The proposals could also mean thousands of smaller building projects going ahead.

The disclosures will increase concerns about the Coalition’s proposal to adopt a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which critics say will lead to unrestrained building in the countryside...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/8736480/Planning-reforms-blight-of-the-builders-charter.html

NIMBY whiners. On one hand they complain about the death of rural communities but then refuse absolutely any development anywhere!

I say bring it on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a drop in the ocean

Nearly a third of land in England and Wales is still owned by a small group of aristocrats, research indicated today.

Wealthy individuals and their estates are thought to control about 20 million of the country's 60 million acres.

Research by Country Life magazine found that 36,000 members of the Country Land & Business Association, whose members are mainly individuals and estates, collectively own half of all rural land in England and Wales.

The Forestry Commission is the country's biggest landowner, holding nearly 2.6 million acres on behalf of the Government, which recently announced plans to privatise it.

It is followed by the National Trust, which has 630,000 acres and 350 historic properties, while the Defence Estates, which holds land for the Ministry of Defence, has 593,000 acres, and pension funds collectively control 550,000 acres.

About 500,000 acres of land in the UK is owned by utility companies, including water and electricity firms and railways, while the Crown Estate has 358,000 acres, worth more than £6.6 billion, and the RSPB has 321,000 acres.

3000 a year out of whats already not gentrified: thats 1300 years worth of constant building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBY whiners. On one hand they complain about the death of rural communities but then refuse absolutely any development anywhere!

I say bring it on!

Not quite true.

It's not blocks of two/three bed starter homes most object too, it's the 4 bed+ executive McMansion barratt estate development monstrosities most nimby's take issue with.

And who can blame them?

We need more building yes, but builders need to be made to build the RIGHT houses in the right areas. Not granted carte blanche to knock up vast estates of sub standard and vapid housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite true.

It's not blocks of two/three bed starter homes most object too, it's the 4 bed+ executive McMansion barratt estate development monstrosities most nimby's take issue with.

And who can blame them?

We need more building yes, but builders need to be made to build the RIGHT houses in the right areas. Not granted carte blanche to knock up vast estates of sub standard and vapid housing.

but at the same time that is the kind of housing they have raised their kids to aspire to - blame goes two ways in this game

a single Barratt new build with gurantee that kids can only help using BOMAD donations from equity release = good

an estate of 150 of them that other peoples' kids can buy without family help = bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I am sure some palces could do with more houses - the problem is more to do with many of them sitting empty to simply provide people in big towns to have hte ability to tell their friends about their 'holiday home' in the <Insert location here>

Huge taxes on second homes = problem solved very quickly. And those who are mega rich will still be able to afford their numerous places - like they always have. Very simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBY whiners. On one hand they complain about the death of rural communities but then refuse absolutely any development anywhere!

I say bring it on!

Which is a good stance to take if that's all it's about. If continuous development is a necessity just for staying still then something's screwed and needs to change. I'm very much coming around to the view that it's not change that's the issue (although it is for some, and others simply love change for the sake of change) but perpetual expansion. Pull down something that's falling down, build new one to replace it, split some up, knock others through into one, add an extension here - all fine and good. But a slowly-growing one-way path from hamlet to village to town to city is something that everyone should be afraid of but which all too many posters seem to want to embrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The objections to more open planning are all about this statement:

"I've got my nice little corner of the countryside...and YOU aren't invited. I've moved into my nice cosy bit of Norfolk/Suffolk/Devon/Dorset etc etc, and now I'm here, I'll do everything I can to stop YOU doing the same".

Nearly all objections against more equitable planning regulations are lodged by either individuals who want to monopolise the countryside NOW THEY have their rural idyll, or by organisations like English Heritage, various "societies for the protection of ..........(fill in here)", or even by town dwellers who have been brainwashed by the above into thinking that their leisure trips into the countryside from their sardine packed urban homes will result in seeing multiple blots on the landscape.

In fact, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, a vast increase in housing in rural areas, sensibly distributed, would have very little impact on the rural landscape. What local authorities have been doing for many years is to pack everyone into ever more ring-fenced urban areas THEY consider everyone should be forced to live, under the bogus notion that encroachment into artificially designated "green belt" regions would be ruinous. Actually, the opposite has been the case. Urban planning has concentrated poor quality, and in the main expensive, housing in the very urban areas that are already stretched to breaking point in terms of traffic, over-crowding, parking, shopping, and public or municipal facilities.

It is a complete myth that an increase in rural housing provision would ruin the countryside. This myth is promoted by the haves who want to block out the have nots, and local authorities reinforce the myth under the guise of "sustainability", a word much abused and misused, and almost never defined clearly or intelligently by the vast amount of proposals and paperwork produced by out-of-touch council committees who are prepared to publish any old incoherent rubbish in order to satisfy what they think is conformity with even more vague directives by central government, environmental interest groups and especially mass-housing developers who are far too cosy with planning departments.

The idea that rural buiding would somehow "concrete over" the whole of the UK is utterly preposterous. This paranoia has its routes almost entirely in those organisations whose assessment of housing provision is in cloud cuckoo land.

I have just returned from a long tour of Norfolk and Suffolk. These fine counties have huge areas of virtual wilderness, in relative UK terms, in which local authorities designate even existing barn conversions and many well designed fresh developments of former farm houses, cottages, reclaimed outhouses, run-down dwellings etc, as "holiday-only" housing, or with other restrictive convenents, in the disastrously implemented policy of "tourism promotion", while forgetting that villages and hamlets are dying through lack of local or permanent inhabitants who have been forced into already crowded towns. Thus many parts of East Anglia are turning into socially disfunctional nightmares (examples: Thetford, Lowestoft, Yarmouth, Gorleston) full to the brim of extremely poorly-planned housing bunched up into desperately gloomy estates where crime, drug-pushing and social divisiveness is the norm.

Meanwhile perfectly open and generously large areas which would actually benefit from decent new housing, reclaimed existing housing and re-launching of currently ghost-like villages and hamlets, have been declared inviolable. This madness has resulted in crazy prices ever escalating despite the nationwide property price crash, all because people are fighting for a half decent dwelling in the country.

If you tour through East Anglia you will see clearly that housing that is "dotted" around rural areas, provided sympathetic development is encouraged, is far more acceptable than ribbon, brown field or concentrated development in designated areas imposed by breathtakingly arrogant local authority planners.

The resurgence of so-called "green belt" land is nothing more than a form of elitism in favour of often obscure pressure groups who feel that protecting grasshopper populations is more important than the provision of decent housing, and the pandering to those who got their foot in the door when they could and now want to declare their exclusive parcel of the countryside a no-go area for everyone else, unless of course they are staying for a week's holiday after which they are returned from whence they came having been fleeced by over-priced hotels, boating businesses and generally very poor catering.

When you hear objections to new planning proposals, ask yourself three salient questions. What are the vested interests of the objectors, where do they live themselves (I'm willing to bet they live in the very regions they want to ban everyone else from), and are their objections any more than an excercise in self-interest? In my view the answer is generally yes to all three. Their objections are rarely anything to do with protecting the countryside, and more to do with protecting their private pile.

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Which is a good stance to take if that's all it's about. If continuous development is a necessity just for staying still then something's screwed and needs to change. I'm very much coming around to the view that it's not change that's the issue (although it is for some, and others simply love change for the sake of change) but perpetual expansion. Pull down something that's falling down, build new one to replace it, split some up, knock others through into one, add an extension here - all fine and good. But a slowly-growing one-way path from hamlet to village to town to city is something that everyone should be afraid of but which all too many posters seem to want to embrace.

IMHO the restrictive planning system act as a block to the transmission of accurate price signals, it prevents an appropriate increase in supply in response to an increase in demand, which is essential in efficient markets.

Imagine for a moment an extremely open planning system, I own an plot of agricultural land on the outskirts of town, I am currently getting a certain yield from farming (or renting to a farmer), but I look at the yield I can get from residential or commercial property, I do my maths and work out that it is worth me making a capital investment and develop some houses as the yields are so much higher. Now in this open planning system are we going to get the whole country concreted over, well no, because the market will respond to the increase in supply in residential (or commercial) property, residential yields will drop, where as the yields on agricultural land would rise. We have a clear transmission of price signals and the market responds accordingly. Likewise the market can determine whether it makes sense to knock down some houses and build a sky scrapper, or knock down some houses and build a factory, the price signals are clear.

There are other barriers of course, i.e. inequality in tax legislation, farm subsidies etc, remove those too (perhaps consider LVT) and we actually start to get competition and proper capitalism in land. Again strictly IMHO but we don't currently have a capitalist system for land, what we have is some kind of bastardisation of manorialism and gerontocracy disguised as capitalism.

Consider this, what would happen if the government decided that only 100 new companies could be formed per year, and that 10 of those had to be in manufacturing, 30 retail, etc? Or that a company that wanted to issues shares to raise capital could only issue 1000 new shares? Or how about if they stated that a dairy farmer is only allowed to produce x amounts of litres of milk per acre?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine for a moment an extremely open planning system, I own an plot of agricultural land on the outskirts of town, I am currently getting a certain yield from farming (or renting to a farmer), but I look at the yield I can get from residential or commercial property, I do my maths and work out that it is worth me making a capital investment and develop some houses as the yields are so much higher. Now in this open planning system are we going to get the whole country concreted over, well no, because the market will respond to the increase in supply in residential (or commercial) property, residential yields will drop, where as the yields on agricultural land would rise. We have a clear transmission of price signals and the market responds accordingly. Likewise the market can determine whether it makes sense to knock down some houses and build a sky scrapper, or knock down some houses and build a factory, the price signals are clear.

I can see your point, but you are only considering price and not the overall effects on society. Who is going to build the new doctors surgery? Who will improve the road system? Your talking about a system where the land owners take and give give nothing back, planning has to be there enable towns to grow in a way that benefits everyone, not to build sterile shoebox estates.

I was talking to a developer the other day, to get planning permission the new estate will be over 50% amenity space/new parkland, will you put 50% parkland on your plot of land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to a developer the other day, to get planning permission the new estate will be over 50% amenity space/new parkland, will you put 50% parkland on your plot of land?

Unfortunately, your developer might be talking from an orifice. I live on a development which at its inception had the agreement of developers, planners, local authority et al that the strict conditions on which the very large development (5,000 dwellings in total) would be built was the provision of:

1. A community centre

2. A large playground for kids

3. Local shops

4. Communal areas

5. Foliage

6. Library

Seven years after the bulk of this development was finished, there is no community centre, no play area for children, no local shops, almost no communal foliage, no library and zero public facilities of any kind. The local council has stood back and done precisely nothing, yet charges extremely high council tax.

There is NOT ONE local shop where you can buy a pint of milk or newspaper. You are forced to drive, cycle or walk to the local Asda, who no doubt slapped a planning restriction on any competing shopping outlet within a one mile radius, in league with planners. Meanwhile, the centre of the development has a non NHS dentist, just one doctor to serve an area with a population of 12,000, and several PLC owned chain restaurants and "gift shops" leased to the highest bidder, thereby shutting out any useful local retailers. The development is pleasant enough but is essentially a ghetto with no social infrastructure whatsoever.

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the restrictive planning system act as a block to the transmission of accurate price signals, it prevents an appropriate increase in supply in response to an increase in demand, which is essential in efficient markets.

Agreed, but what that doesn't prove is that that's the lesser of two evils - why is an efficient market more desirable than an inefficient one and a country with a bit of a housing issue but overall a more attractive place to be? Markets prioritise localised short-term monetary considerations, and I'm very unconvinced that that'll give the best balance of everything. Of course that doesn't mean that more control and regulation can't make things far worse in every possible way.

The objections to more open planning are all about this statement:

"I've got my nice little corner of the countryside...and YOU aren't invited. I've moved into my nice cosy bit of Norfolk/Suffolk/Devon/Dorset etc etc, and now I'm here, I'll do everything I can to stop YOU doing the same".

Nonsense. I've never seen any evidence for that NIMBY "I don't want it here but couldn't care less if you do the same thing to somewhere else" attitude. And what you seem to want is "If I can't have it then neither can anyone else." The more there is around that hasn't been made a mess of the better - it's there to visit, it's there when I travel from place to place, and my life's a lot better for it despite living in Stockport.

In fact, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, a vast increase in housing in rural areas, sensibly distributed, would have very little impact on the rural landscape.

Also nonsense. You see signs of the last 50 years of development wherever you go, why on earth do you think doing any now would be negligable? As I keep having to point out, compare the feel of the UK to somewhere like France, with about half the population density. It's only been pointed out by those who's argument is along the lines of "It's only x percent of land" as if the number by itself means anything (the average city probably doesn't have 50% of its land occupied by buildings). The difference between towns 5 miles apart with a fair scatter of houses in between and 15 miles apart with few inbetween is very, very noticeable, as is whether the nearest city is just behind the hill or 20 miles away, even if the immediate outlook is the same. And the most obvious example of all is that it's a long, long way from wilderness anywhere in Britain (apart from a few bits of Scotland I suppose).

I can understand people who say that tough, we need to build, but you've got to be blind or so used to be cooped up that any openess seems the same to pretend there are no downsides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I can see your point, but you are only considering price and not the overall effects on society. Who is going to build the new doctors surgery? Who will improve the road system? Your talking about a system where the land owners take and give give nothing back, planning has to be there enable towns to grow in a way that benefits everyone, not to build sterile shoebox estates.

I was talking to a developer the other day, to get planning permission the new estate will be over 50% amenity space/new parkland, will you put 50% parkland on your plot of land?

Well, a couple of points, I don't know about you, but personally I wouldn't want to live in an area without a doctors surgery, school, transport links and park for my kids to play, so I wouldn't buy a house there. I.e. 2 developers plan to build on a few hectares of land, one with green space and facilities and one lots of concrete boxes built with a hairs breadth between them, I know which I would choose.

In the same way that when I buy a car I don't buy one that has wheels, an engine, a seat and not a lot else based on the absolute cheapest price. I chose one that is comfortable, has heating, maybe even a parking sensor. Fortunately I can do this with cars because there is competition in the market, if the government said that only 1000 cars a year could be built then I very much doubt I could afford the comfortable one, (in fact a car was *essential* to me, I'd have little choice but to rent one form an equity rich car owner).

The 100% open planning example I'm giving here is obviously an extreme example, almost the opposite of what we have now. In reality I do see the need for 'planning' but that in my mind is more a co-ordination of the market, helping households and businesses demand be matched by developer supply, giving sympathetic consideration to overarching concerns of the overall community. Not as they currently do, ‘central planning’ and restricting supply.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As another poster once said (and I paraphrase a long post here):

'The incredible horror of suburban sprawl... or as others might call it, decent homes with a decent amount of space around them'.

Planning is clearly too restrictive. It has raised the kind of barriers that can only be got around by the big corporate developers who have the firepower to employ planning consultants and get 'close' to councils.

I don't know a single person who has been able, as an individual, to buy a plot of land (which is not an urban brownfield) and build a simple house, without some kind of agricultural or holiday home restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in several parts of S.E Asia you can buy a plot of land, build a house of any size you want, with little hassle and cost - even if it requires greasing the palms of a few local big wigs. Has this resulted in the entire region being concreted over? Not at all. Why would the same occur here? People would buy land and build houses in sensible areas where they can connect to telephone services, gas, water, electricity, and are near other people and roads etc, they wouldnt build giant houses in the middle of nowhere blocking your favourite view... developers that put up crappy housing would soon go out of business as nobody would buy as there would be far better alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some fairly annoying comments under that article:

burnside2

Today 12:18 PM

Recommended by 3 people

That there are problems is not in dispute.Part of the problem is the expectations entertained by many young couples that "Affordable" housing should include a large garden, Garage, 4 bedrooms, fully fitted Kitchen, carpeted throughout and avaiable to them on 100% Mortgage!Reality needs to go back in time to a more reasonable expectation!!

Yes, it would be crazy for young couples to buy a house with multiple bedrooms. They might even start having children to put in them. Talk about a nightmare scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. I've never seen any evidence for that NIMBY "I don't want it here but couldn't care less if you do the same thing to somewhere else" attitude. And what you seem to want is "If I can't have it then neither can anyone else." The more there is around that hasn't been made a mess of the better - it's there to visit, it's there when I travel from place to place, and my life's a lot better for it despite living in Stockport.

Well, you've completely misquoted me. Please go back, read and then if you must, quote exactly what I said, not what you assume I said. I said quite clearly that there was evidence that people already established in a rural location then create a fuss about others wanting the same thing. I never said anything approaching "If I can't have it neither can anyone else". If anything I said the opposite: That there is ample room in rural UK not to have to concentrate housing in already ghastly places that are palplably over-built.

You demonstrate the exact brainwashing I highlighted when you describe your gratitude that, as you suppose, rural planning restraint is giving you a better quality of life when you travel from place to place. You are making an assumption that all rural development is by default subject to being "made a mess of". I think the opposite is the case: Planners have put a halt to almost ALL rural housing development of the kind I highlighted, while continuing to encourage lousy, ugly, high density housing in areas already blighted with the same thing. It is as though they are saying: "It's pretty bad already so it doesn't matter if we add even mnore ugliness".

I take you point that it is not just about percentages of available land, or proportional use. However, if the landscape of the UK is to be based on ACCEPTING the rank and dismal ugliness of urban sprawl, badly designed and planned, just so we can have the "relief" of a cross country trip before we return back to the squalor and ghastliness we left behind for a day, I don't think that is a very promising paradigm for living.

Planners spend inordinate time and energy being fussy about every brick, window and fitting in a rural house, while apparently allowing free rein in already virtually ruined towns. They need to be fussy about BOTH areas.

As I clearly explained, it is perfectly possible to allow careful rural plannning that preserves the landscape without wholesale restrictions being needed. The only alternative is to sardine can us all in utterly demoralising towns and cities and keep the countryside as some kind of zoo, or museum. The countryside is not just there for a day's temporary relief from urban awfulness. It is there to be lived in too, and I believe it could be lived in to a much greater extent without any significant impact. Not only that but it would alleviate the relentless march of urban spread which, as I also mentioned, promotes social tension, crime and a host of other undesirable things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you've completely misquoted me. Please go back, read and then if you must, quote exactly what I said, not what you assume I said. I said quite clearly that there was evidence that people already established in a rural location then create a fuss about others wanting the same thing. I never said anything approaching "If I can't have it neither can anyone else". If anything I said the opposite: That there is ample room in rural UK not to have to concentrate housing in already ghastly places that are palplably over-built.

You demonstrate the exact brainwashing I highlighted when you describe your gratitude that, as you suppose, rural planning restraint is giving you a better quality of life when you travel from place to place. You are making an assumption that all rural development is by default subject to being "made a mess of". I think the opposite is the case: Planners have put a halt to almost ALL rural housing development of the kind I highlighted, while continuing to encourage lousy, ugly, high density housing in areas already blighted with the same thing. It is as though they are saying: "It's pretty bad already so it doesn't matter if we add even mnore ugliness".

I take you point that it is not just about percentages of available land, or proportional use. However, if the landscape of the UK is to be based on ACCEPTING the rank and dismal ugliness of urban sprawl, badly designed and planned, just so we can have the "relief" of a cross country trip before we return back to the squalor and ghastliness we left behind for a day, I don't think that is a very promising paradigm for living.

Planners spend inordinate time and energy being fussy about every brick, window and fitting in a rural house, while apparently allowing free rein in already virtually ruined towns. They need to be fussy about BOTH areas.

As I clearly explained, it is perfectly possible to allow careful rural plannning that preserves the landscape without wholesale restrictions being needed. The only alternative is to sardine can us all in utterly demoralising towns and cities and keep the countryside as some kind of zoo, or museum. The countryside is not just there for a day's temporary relief from urban awfulness. It is there to be lived in too, and I believe it could be lived in to a much greater extent without any significant impact. Not only that but it would alleviate the relentless march of urban spread which, as I also mentioned, promotes social tension, crime and a host of other undesirable things.

I wonder how much of the justification behind horrible looking Barratt housing estates is because that is what most people (excluding you and me) actually want to buy?

it is fine building careful rurallly relevant architecture, but most people are common as muck and won't respect the effort that goes into it, imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you've completely misquoted me. Please go back, read and then if you must, quote exactly what I said, not what you assume I said. I said quite clearly that there was evidence that people already established in a rural location then create a fuss about others wanting the same thing. I never said anything approaching "If I can't have it neither can anyone else". If anything I said the opposite: That there is ample room in rural UK not to have to concentrate housing in already ghastly places that are palplably over-built.

If you think I've misquoted you then perhaps you should learn how to express yourself more clearly. The implication of over-riding their objections is to do precisely what they don't want, thus neither you nor they have it.

You demonstrate the exact brainwashing I highlighted when you describe your gratitude that, as you suppose, rural planning restraint is giving you a better quality of life when you travel from place to place. You are making an assumption that all rural development is by default subject to being "made a mess of". I think the opposite is the case: Planners have put a halt to almost ALL rural housing development of the kind I highlighted, while continuing to encourage lousy, ugly, high density housing in areas already blighted with the same thing. It is as though they are saying: "It's pretty bad already so it doesn't matter if we add even mnore ugliness".

No, I don't. What I do do is view the environment I live in as more than simply the immediate place I occupy. Do you want a hut in heaven or a palace in hell? Encouraging lousy, ugly, badly-built housing in already crowded areas is obviously bad but is a separate subject. And of course not all rural development is making a mess of the place (well, actually it does, but that's merely because just about all development is a cheaply, badly-built mess whether rural or not, but that's a separate subject). What does is the gradual, inexorable increase in the level of development. It's a slow erosion rather than a sudden destruction. Bits of changing around but keeping the average the same wouldn't be much of an issue (depending on precisely what is built of course, but that's the same anywhere). So, up to a point, it's better to keep the attractive parts at the expense of the others not being quite as good as we'd like.

I take you point that it is not just about percentages of available land, or proportional use. However, if the landscape of the UK is to be based on ACCEPTING the rank and dismal ugliness of urban sprawl, badly designed and planned, just so we can have the "relief" of a cross country trip before we return back to the squalor and ghastliness we left behind for a day, I don't think that is a very promising paradigm for living.

That's an argument for sorting out town and city planning rather than moving out of the cities.

Planners spend inordinate time and energy being fussy about every brick, window and fitting in a rural house, while apparently allowing free rein in already virtually ruined towns. They need to be fussy about BOTH areas.

Agreed.

As I clearly explained, it is perfectly possible to allow careful rural plannning that preserves the landscape without wholesale restrictions being needed. The only alternative is to sardine can us all in utterly demoralising towns and cities and keep the countryside as some kind of zoo, or museum. The countryside is not just there for a day's temporary relief from urban awfulness. It is there to be lived in too, and I believe it could be lived in to a much greater extent without any significant impact. Not only that but it would alleviate the relentless march of urban spread which, as I also mentioned, promotes social tension, crime and a host of other undesirable things.

Partially agree - it's there to be lived in, true. It won't be a zoo or museum - the land still needs farming for us to eat. However, I still disagree about it being possible to increase the population density of rural areas without it being very noticeable. The increase from the last century is, for example, as is the difference between various rural areas (I've lived in rural areas in Cumbria and Bedfordshire, and the difference there is very obvious and we're not talking about the fact that there's a national park nearby either).

As a least bad option for a growing population there's a lot of sense in what you say, but it isn't a non-issue.

it is fine building careful rurallly relevant architecture, but most people are common as muck and won't respect the effort that goes into it, imho

Possibly a case of accepting what you're used to?

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think I've misquoted you then perhaps you should learn how to express yourself more clearly. The implication of over-riding their objections is to do precisely what they don't want, thus neither you nor they have it.

I thought I was very clear! I said, quoting a hypothetical but typical rural property owner: "I've moved into my nice cosy bit of Norfolk/Suffolk/Devon/Dorset etc etc, and now I'm here, I'll do everything I can to stop YOU doing the same". You responded by suggestion I meant "If I can't have it, nor can you". I didn't say that at all!

Anyway, to be more constructive, the notion that there isn't "NIMBY" work going on is soundly rebuffed if one researches not just the most common reasons for planning objections, but who they come from.

If you look at the published lists of typical objections in local authority reports, the overwhelming proportion of those objections, apart from the planners themselves, come from precisely the people I referred to, ie: those who bought a decent place in a pleasant location, got planning permission to add all sorts of addons, gizmos, extensions, out-houses, ponds, fences, garages, etc etc, and then launch repeated campaigns against anyone else doing the same thing.

But at least we both agree on one thing, but then I suspect most do. No-one wants poor building that creates a landscape of dismal aspect whether it is urban or rural. One thing I will add though, just taking a simple example: petrol stations are allowed to blot all landscapes with their ghastly great plastic signs (BP, Shell et al). It would be a good start to tell the oil giants to go some way to express their bogus "environmental" credentials by at least designing fuel stop-overs that don't utterly bespoil urban areas, and the same can be said of Asda, Tescos and the rest of the giant shed builders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense a U-turn on this one. Anyone who saw the issue being debated on Newsnight last night will have witnessed a weak and irresolute defence of the planning proposals by the minster, Greg Clarke, in the face of a combined kicking administered by both Simon Jenkins (National Trust chairman) and Paxman. The kicking had been preceded by a biased intro which implied a (clearly protected) green valley near Stroud was about to be smothered with Barratt homes. At no point during the intro, or the kicking, was the housing shortage mentioned (including by the minster).

The coalition can get tough when they want - handing out jail sentences to rioting kids for instance - but when it comes to banksters or rural nimbys, they come over all conciliatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense a U-turn on this one. Anyone who saw the issue being debated on Newsnight last night will have witnessed a weak and irresolute defence of the planning proposals by the minster, Greg Clarke, in the face of a combined kicking administered by both Simon Jenkins (National Trust chairman) and Paxman. The kicking had been preceded by a biased intro which implied a (clearly protected) green valley near Stroud was about to be smothered with Barratt homes. At no point during the intro, or the kicking, was the housing shortage mentioned (including by the minster).

The coalition can get tough when they want - handing out jail sentences to rioting kids for instance - but when it comes to banksters or rural nimbys, they come over all conciliatory.

but since the coalition are making the laws then it hardly matters, they don't need to shout, they have the power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense a U-turn on this one. Anyone who saw the issue being debated on Newsnight last night will have witnessed a weak and irresolute defence of the planning proposals by the minster, Greg Clarke, in the face of a combined kicking administered by both Simon Jenkins (National Trust chairman) and Paxman. The kicking had been preceded by a biased intro which implied a (clearly protected) green valley near Stroud was about to be smothered with Barratt homes. At no point during the intro, or the kicking, was the housing shortage mentioned (including by the minster).

The coalition can get tough when they want - handing out jail sentences to rioting kids for instance - but when it comes to banksters or rural nimbys, they come over all conciliatory.

I felt the same thing watching Newsnight. I was staggered by the lack of discussion about the need for ANY housing. Of course, the National Trust and English Heritage are run and controlled by some very nice and agreeable folk, a great many of whom have equally agreeable dwellings in still more agreeable landscapes but don't want anyone else cutting in on their act. By the way, Simon Jenkins, at least until 2008, lived in a very pleasant regency house, and seems never to have had the misfortune of having to dwell in the dismal urban homes he wants to decant everyone else into while protecting his beloved rural architecture from being threatened by, god forbid, ordinary people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 343 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.