Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
John The Pessimist

Boles Suggests That Some Fields Should Be Built Upon.

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10135739/Build-on-boring-fields-says-minister.html

"Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, criticised the planning minister's comments and accused the Government of being "in denial" about the scale of building on the countryside.

"What he classes as uninteresting fields might be essential for growing food or somewhere that people absolutely love walking their dog on or just looking at," he said.

Mr Spiers also called on the Prime Minister to "intervene" to stop the "huge amount of development going up on the Green Belt".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10135739/Build-on-boring-fields-says-minister.html

"Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, criticised the planning minister's comments and accused the Government of being "in denial" about the scale of building on the countryside.

"What he classes as uninteresting fields might be essential for growing food or somewhere that people absolutely love walking their dog on or just looking at," he said.

Mr Spiers also called on the Prime Minister to "intervene" to stop the "huge amount of development going up on the Green Belt".

One person likes looking at a field so no houses should be built there. Preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One person likes looking at a field so no houses should be built there. Preposterous.

I agree, but down my neck of the woods there is pressure to build on fields because one person who has a home in London wants a second one here for the odd weekend away.

Preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph...s-minister.html

"Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, criticised the planning minister's comments and accused the Government of being "in denial" about the scale of building on the countryside.

"What he classes as uninteresting fields might be essential for growing food or somewhere that people absolutely love walking their dog on or just looking at," he said.

Mr Spiers also called on the Prime Minister to "intervene" to stop the "huge amount of development going up on the Green Belt".

definition of the NIMBY ... clear and simple ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One person likes looking at a field so no houses should be built there. Preposterous.

I think what people and I mean ordinary peoople not middle class professional NIMBY's are annoyed about is that unfettered immigration has increased our population to the extent where this is the 'reason' for the building of more homes.

The argument that a few hundred thousand homes a year (lets face it, it won't be millions will it) will change the average cost of a home in a market with 30 million units is - yep preposterous if people can't afford a home now this won't change the price built on a field or not.

Edited by Greg Bowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One person means fields being built on? How big is their planned house?

Highest proportion of second homes in the country in the counties of Devon and Cornwall, the region where I live

Often reaching ludicrous proportions eg this village where second homes are 40% of the stock

Second homes are also marketed as solid investment vehicles, ideal for those bonuses

The solutions include this

Cranbrook

and this

Sherford

While this MP identifies the problem, she can't utter the unpalatable solution for fear of upsetting her core vote, so we'll just let people rent the houses, making homes appear to be an investment vehicle -

the problem is that it's just words as

'Second homes' are unlikely to come onto the rental market.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what people and I mean ordinary peoople not middle class professional NIMBY's are annoyed about is that unfettered immigration has increased our population to the extent where this is the 'reason' for the building of more homes.

The argument that a few hundred thousand homes a year (lets face it, it won't be millions will it) will change the average cost of a home in a market with 30 million units is - yep preposterous if people can't afford a home now this won't change the price built on a field or not.

I suppose one has to ask how this situation is to be resolved?

Are we going to start forcibly removing immigrants? Unlikely. That being so, it's daft to prevent building in order to make a point. It just punishes people. It's a crap situation but is it worth perpetuating and burning the economy, forcing people to commute greater distances and the knock-on effects for family cohesion and communities, just to highlight it ? For many, the answer is an emphatic "Yes", which I think is very sad.

I think a few hundred thousand homes a year would be no bad thing in the circumstances.

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose one has to ask how this situation is to be resolved?

Are we going to start forcibly removing immigrants? Unlikely. That being so, it's daft to prevent building in order to make a point. It just punishes people. It's a crap situation but is it worth perpetuating and burning the economy, forcing people to commute greater distances and the knock-on effects for family cohesion and communities, just to highlight it ? For many, the answer is an emphatic "Yes", which I think is very sad.

I think a few hundred thousand homes a year would be no bad thing in the circumstances.

I agree but the fact remains if you can't afford a house now, how are you going to afford one built in a field at broadly the same price ? In all the areas scheduled for building there is plenty of housing stock for sale so if you want to live there you can. Inside Zone 6 in London things have got out of hand but there doesn't seem much space there to change that.

It is a mess but impacting people's environments with thrown up plastic housing estates doesn't seem to me to be the best solution.

Edited by Greg Bowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but the fact remains if you can't afford a house now, how are you going to afford one built in a field at broadly the same price ? In all the areas scheduled for building there is plenty of housing stock for sale so if you want to live there you can. Inside Zone 6 in London things have got out of hand but there doesn't seem much space there to change that.

It is a mess but impacting people's environments with thrown up plastic housing estates doesn't seem to me to be the best solution.

Quite, at Cranbrook this Bovis home is s snip at £185,000 with a little help from your friends.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly true that builders have been spectacularly successful at lobbying.

Self build offers a means of escape for this situation, doubtless why it doesn't happen much. Provide a plot with services plus planning permission and let people get on with it. Better than paying builderco a king's radsom for somthing mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also add that I am of the view that increasing supply will force lower prices, pricing power amingst builders can be diminished, if some cant live with it then normal rules ought to apply-liquidate and sell on to others. We've become used to the idea that prices must be paid, and the zombies must be kept staggering on. A bit of a clearout would be no bad thing imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10135739/Build-on-boring-fields-says-minister.html

"Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, criticised the planning minister's comments and accused the Government of being "in denial" about the scale of building on the countryside.

"What he classes as uninteresting fields might be essential for growing food or somewhere that people absolutely love walking their dog on or just looking at," he said.

Mr Spiers also called on the Prime Minister to "intervene" to stop the "huge amount of development going up on the Green Belt".

I liked looking at the old brutalist corby shopping centre and old steelworks ruins. Strange, i know, but damnit, the world should stand still for me. Nothing should ever change from how I remember it.

Therein lies the rub. These people are out of arguments. This is their argument. They have no objective reasons to stop development, so their argument begins and ends at 'me,me,me'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also add that I am of the view that increasing supply will force lower prices, pricing power amingst builders can be diminished, if some cant live with it then normal rules ought to apply-liquidate and sell on to others. We've become used to the idea that prices must be paid, and the zombies must be kept staggering on. A bit of a clearout would be no bad thing imo.

I couldn't care how cheap the following are, i'd never buy one to live in. Put a high wire fence around them and call the site an 'open prison'.

Housing-estate-in-Wiltshire-England.png

My fear is that developers will throw affordable crap at hard working families while other properties stagnate with their high house prices, or sell amongst those who can afford them. A bimodal housing stock.

We'll rue this period even more in 50 years time

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't care how cheap the following are, i'd never buy one to live in. Put a high wire fence around them and call the site an 'open prison'.

Housing-estate-in-Wiltshire-England.png

My fear is that developers will throw affordable crap at hard working families while other properties stagnate with their high house prices, or sell amongst those who can afford them. A bimodal housing stock.

We'll rue this period even more in 50 years time

You appear to be close to saying that prices should be kept high in the national interest.

How would you solve the current problem, assuming you feel there is a problem which needs to be addressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You appear to be close to saying that prices should be kept high in the national interest.

No

How would you solve the current problem, assuming you feel there is a problem which needs to be addressed?

That is a fair question.

I have rented for 27 years. Buying a home has and will always be an economic choice for me. I have no 'need' to own the place I live in if owning doesn't stack up.. Some people feel the need to own a home.

In my simplistic world, for my and everyone's housing benefit, I would like prices to collapse by 50%.

People that overpaid, mewed or have debts should suffer the losses and consequences, even if that means being repossessed. Rigging the market means nobody learns any lessons.

That of course will cause economic havoc and discomfort. My salary, and most of the cash jn Joe Blogg's savings account is money leveraged on the back of HPI.

I genuinely feel sorry for the situation of the Government. I don't applaud their housing policies to prop up the market, however - although I suspect they are trying for a soft landing. It is just that we on here are too impatient.

I would be happy to see building. The current developers are not a good solution. High profits made by poor developments on flat easy to access, and so, cheap to develop, sites.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

That is a fair question.

I have rented for 27 years. Buying a home has and will always be an economic choice for me. I have no 'need' to own the place I live in if owning doesn't stack up.. Some people feel the need to own a home.

In my simplistic world, for my and everyone's housing benefit, I would like prices to collapse by 50%.

People that overpaid, mewed or have debts should suffer the losses and consequences, even if that means being repossessed. Rigging the market means nobody learns any lessons.

That of course will cause economic havoc and discomfort. My salary, and most of the cash jn Joe Blogg's savings account is money leveraged on the back of HPI.

I genuinely feel sorry for the situation of the Government. I don't applaud their housing policies to prop up the market, however - although I suspect they are trying for a soft landing. It is just that we on here are too impatient.

I would be happy to see building. The current developers are not a good solution. High profits made by poor developments on flat easy to access, and so, cheap to develop, sites.

Apologies, I misinterpreted your previous post.

It's a big mess alright as you say. I'd love to see self build plots made available on a large scale, which would hopefully avoid the sort of ghetto in the picture you posted.

In addition, the 'brownfield only' development argument is something I'd like to see tackled too. Sometimes it's not possible, or not desireable. e.g. factory closes, is there a need for more homes when the jobs have gone? Pepole commuting longer = increased likelihood of family breakdown.

There has to be scope to put homes beside jobs, just like in days gone by.

I think you're right about how this period will be viewed in the coming decades, complete folly. Our descendents will view us collectively as a rather dim bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our descendents will view us collectively as a rather dim bunch.

If we're lucky

we have squandered everything and forgotten how to value anything

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One person likes looking at a field so no houses should be built there. Preposterous.

In a weird way I think that quote is excellent news. It's now on record how utterly out of touch and selfish this Shaun Spiers b@stard is, as the chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, he said:

"What he classes as uninteresting fields might be essential for growing food or somewhere that people absolutely love walking their dog on or just looking at".

Brilliant. On record: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/10135739/Build-on-boring-fields-says-minister.html

What a selfish, insensitive, total effing b@astard.

Green-Belt_2327927a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why NIMBY's are starting to lose is their ideology is so rigid and extreme that they cannot offer alternatives. Say they said, we are against all of these fields being built on with single family residences, but we are supporting the building of tall condo buildings close to transit and city centres. Then it would be a choice.

Instead they are rabidly opposed to both. So it is not a valuable contribution to the debate. Because to a sane person, the human right to shelter outweighs the 'right' to view farmland out your front window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I thought Boles was a visionary but now I begin to realise he's just a Tory stooge. In the job to float unconventional policy to see how much damage it would do to the party if it were implemented - because a house building boom of course is a get out option for the government, if it weren't for all those tory nimbys.

Plenty of gas. No action.

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.

  • 238 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.