Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tory plan to concrete over England over staking donations from developers.


Recommended Posts

The Tories are bringing back their disgraceful plan to block locals from having a say over planning. Basically a developers charter, which I am sure has nothing to do with the 11m in donations the Tories got from developers.

If you think this has anything to do with affordable housing you need your head examining. Developers haven't paid 11m in "donations" to gain the right to build cheap low profit affordable homes.

Worse outcome from this, is when the property bubble implodes, we will be left with large numbers of badly built ghost estates, like Ireland after the last crash.

Boris worst PM of all time? Entirely possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Hah, good luck with complaining about that on here, the idea being brought back is probably making a large proportion of posters go weak at the knees.

Do you mean the ones controlled from Tory HQ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bartelbe said:

The Tories are bringing back their disgraceful plan to block locals from having a say over planning. Basically a developers charter, which I am sure has nothing to do with the 11m in donations the Tories got from developers.

If you think this has anything to do with affordable housing you need your head examining. Developers haven't paid 11m in "donations" to gain the right to build cheap low profit affordable homes.

Worse outcome from this, is when the property bubble implodes, we will be left with large numbers of badly built ghost estates, like Ireland after the last crash.

Boris worst PM of all time? Entirely possible.

If you think this has anything to do with UNaffordable housing you'd be right,

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, bartelbe said:

The Tories are bringing back their disgraceful plan to block locals from having a say over planning. Basically a developers charter, which I am sure has nothing to do with the 11m in donations the Tories got from developers.

If you think this has anything to do with affordable housing you need your head examining. Developers haven't paid 11m in "donations" to gain the right to build cheap low profit affordable homes.

Worse outcome from this, is when the property bubble implodes, we will be left with large numbers of badly built ghost estates, like Ireland after the last crash.

Boris worst PM of all time? Entirely possible.

Locals should not have a say. They don't own the land nor the views not the roads where the inevitable 'traffic' arguments come in. Nimbys have had it far too good over the past few decades.

Not sure how it will actually progress, if at all, I reckon people are going to make money out of it. Bad greedy people, and I think it's a shame. If I get an affordable house out of it, I will allow them their profits. It the tuncs who keep prices high, profit out of it, and do a sh!t job out of it that get my goat.

Worst outcome? If that's the worst outcome then I'm voting Tory in 3 years, guaranteed.

Worst PM? If I get that house, along with all of the good things he's given me in the past 18 months, it'll deserve a portrait of him in my study above the fireplace. A Union Flag adorning each side of the granite maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Hah, good luck with complaining about that on here, the idea being brought back is probably making a large proportion of posters go weak at the knees.

Agree. I liked this from CapX. 

https://capx.co/stop-listening-to-nimbys-its-time-for-all-out-war

NIMBYism is a nasty business. NIMBYism is when well-housed, well-off people, who were lucky enough to get on the property ladder in time, use their political muscle and rhetorical skill to deny the same opportunities to other people. The solution is not to “listen” to them, it is not to try to “bring them on board”, or to search for a “consensus”. It is to declare an all-out war on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dryrot said:

Agree. I liked this from CapX. 

https://capx.co/stop-listening-to-nimbys-its-time-for-all-out-war

NIMBYism is a nasty business. NIMBYism is when well-housed, well-off people, who were lucky enough to get on the property ladder in time, use their political muscle and rhetorical skill to deny the same opportunities to other people. The solution is not to “listen” to them, it is not to try to “bring them on board”, or to search for a “consensus”. It is to declare an all-out war on them.

Yes agree...inevitable given numbers of new arrivals over last 15 years or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dryrot said:

Agree. I liked this from CapX. 

https://capx.co/stop-listening-to-nimbys-its-time-for-all-out-war

NIMBYism is a nasty business. NIMBYism is when well-housed, well-off people, who were lucky enough to get on the property ladder in time, use their political muscle and rhetorical skill to deny the same opportunities to other people. The solution is not to “listen” to them, it is not to try to “bring them on board”, or to search for a “consensus”. It is to declare an all-out war on them.

That's just attempting to demonise people with an opinion you don't like. "NIMBY" has become a deliberate pejorative term to attack anyone appalled at the impact of yet more building.

Whilst the accusation that some such accused aren't interested in the plight of others getting on the housing ladder is fair enough the people using the term usually come across as even more unpleasant; I've yet to hear one of them admit to any downside to more development, or giving a damn that it might have any negative impact on anything worth having. But then again someone decent enough to admit to that, that development is a necessary evil and thus should be done carefully and alongside plans to minimise demand so there's no need for ever more is unlikely to be the sort of person to bleat on about "NIMBYs".

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Huggy said:

Locals should not have a say. They don't own the land nor the views not the roads where the inevitable 'traffic' arguments come in. Nimbys have had it far too good over the past few decades.

Considering the amount of shitty development that's happened over the last few decades you must live on another planet. No-one "owns" the views but anyone who doesn't give a crap about making a mess of them is vermin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Considering the amount of shitty development that's happened over the last few decades you must live on another planet. No-one "owns" the views but anyone who doesn't give a crap about making a mess of them is vermin.

As pointed out yesterday there are already 1.3m homes with planning permission in England unbuilt since 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

As pointed out yesterday there are already 1.3m homes with planning permission in England unbuilt since 2010.

The thing is I'd find it all fairly easy to accept if there was due consideration given to quality, recognition of the downsides, and a solid plan in place to not keep on pushing up demand so all that was needed was catchup (because needs must). But it's ever harder to have sympathy for those clamouring for more when they have none themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's just attempting to demonise people with an opinion you don't like. "NIMBY" has become a deliberate pejorative term to attack anyone appalled at the impact of yet more building.

Whilst the accusation that some such accused aren't interested in the plight of others getting on the housing ladder is fair enough the people using the term usually come across as even more unpleasant; I've yet to hear one of them admit to any downside to more development, or giving a damn that it might have any negative impact on anything worth having. But then again someone decent enough to admit to that, that development is a necessary evil and thus should be done carefully and alongside plans to minimise demand so there's no need for ever more is unlikely to be the sort of person to bleat on about "NIMBYs".

It's easy to 'admit' that (although I haven't committed a crime so maybe admit is too strong a word) There is a downside to every single development, and the main one is that of natural areas becoming built up areas. Same with every human being born, there are definitely downsides to that, as they will consume much more of this planet than is necessarily desirable.

I also agree that NIMBY is a very perjorative term. As is "NIMBY scum", another phrase I am likely to use after a beer. The problem I have with them is that they have managed to wield an incredible amount of negative power in a selfish way and I would liken them to someone on the Titanic refusing access to a lifeboat because they fancied stretching out in a bit of comfort. The lack of housing that (I honestly believe) is a problem in this country has caused unold millions of insecure family lives and a lifetime of debt servitude to the ones who needed a bit of stability. All because someone liked looking at a field.

And then there there is this.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34350293

Quote

The North Waltham Action Group had opposed the plans for the new hospital because of concerns over traffic, noise and light pollution, and the effect the development would have on the rural landscape.

This is a devlopment that will treat cancer and critical care (heart attacks, strokes or major injuries etc), but the increase in traffic will be quite inconvenient for the resident. I mean f#cking hell and I will say again NIMBY Scum.

I might have a bit of understanding with any concern, but every single bloody development has the same response. I haven't got the time or energy to pick through their arguments to see if any of them might have merit. I suspect many boil down to convenience. Like being able to stretch out comfortably in a lifeboat.

17 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Considering the amount of shitty development that's happened over the last few decades you must live on another planet. No-one "owns" the views but anyone who doesn't give a crap about making a mess of them is vermin.

I dislike new builds almost as much as The North Waltham Action Group, but that is different planning problem that should also be addressed. I'd prefer nice houses and a lot less immigration but as we don't get that, sorry Nimbys your arguments need to be ignored now for the greater good.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Huggy said:

I might have a bit of understanding with any concern, but every single bloody development has the same response. I haven't got the time or energy to pick through their arguments to see if any of them might have merit. I suspect many boil down to convenience. Like being able to stretch out comfortably in a lifeboat.

Every development getting the same response is, I think, a combination of two factors - the overall level of development already, and the quality of it. Quite frankly just about every objection does have merit because more development is always going to be a negative at this point - a necessary one, true, thanks to past irresponsibility, but still a negative.

There are two essential components for less objection I believe - better quality (including location consideration), and give some solid hope for the future that this is pretty much the last one-off; I think many (not all) will accept the necessity if it's not being continually driven upwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's just attempting to demonise people with an opinion you don't like. "NIMBY" has become a deliberate pejorative term to attack anyone appalled at the impact of yet more building.

Whilst the accusation that some such accused aren't interested in the plight of others getting on the housing ladder is fair enough the people using the term usually come across as even more unpleasant; I've yet to hear one of them admit to any downside to more development, or giving a damn that it might have any negative impact on anything worth having. But then again someone decent enough to admit to that, that development is a necessary evil and thus should be done carefully and alongside plans to minimise demand so there's no need for ever more is unlikely to be the sort of person to bleat on about "NIMBYs".

I prefer NODAM (No Development After Mine) to NIMBY. The green outlook that no-one wants to lose - the now established estates once spoiled someone else's view...

development a "necessary evil"? Bit harsh

"plans to minimise demand" Agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dryrot said:

I prefer NODAM (No Development After Mine) to NIMBY. The green outlook that no-one wants to lose - the now established estates once spoiled someone else's view...

development a "necessary evil"? Bit harsh

"plans to minimise demand" Agree

Most established estates aren't exactly great TBH. Whilst there have probably been objections going back to the first mud hut outside someone's cave the level does seem to increase over time so I do strongly believe there's a link with the total levels. Rate also plays a big part; small levels of development over a long time simply don't get noticed as much.

Why's "necessary evil" harsh? It's saying it needs to be done but it would be better if it wasn't needed and wasn't done. It's a common enough phrase, I don't think it implies evil in the most literal sense.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bartelbe said:

The Tories are bringing back their disgraceful plan to block locals from having a say over planning. Basically a developers charter, which I am sure has nothing to do with the 11m in donations the Tories got from developers.

If you think this has anything to do with affordable housing you need your head examining. Developers haven't paid 11m in "donations" to gain the right to build cheap low profit affordable homes.

Worse outcome from this, is when the property bubble implodes, we will be left with large numbers of badly built ghost estates, like Ireland after the last crash.

Boris worst PM of all time? Entirely possible.

Unfortunately this has been cause by Labour policies of swamping the country in previous years will millions of fast breeding immigrants , and socialist feminist welfare policies of allowing feckless single mum chavs to breed like rabbits. Hence the population has increased by nearly 20 millions. Your barking up the wrong tree mate

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gribble said:

Unfortunately this has been cause by Labour policies of swamping the country in previous years will millions of fast breeding immigrants , and socialist feminist welfare policies of allowing feckless single mum chavs to breed like rabbits. Hence the population has increased by nearly 20 millions. Your barking up the wrong tree mate

Labour's been out of power for quite a while now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gribble said:

Unfortunately this has been cause by Labour policies of swamping the country in previous years will millions of fast breeding immigrants , and socialist feminist welfare policies of allowing feckless single mum chavs to breed like rabbits. Hence the population has increased by nearly 20 millions. Your barking up the wrong tree mate

Quoted for the sheer stereotype brilliance.

A work of art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What proportion of the whole UK is classified as continuous urban fabric?

A: 0.1%

"Buildings cover less of Britain than the land revealed when the tide goes out. !

Edited by sexton
addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not get this

On one hand there are people here complaining that there are not enough houses

There are people saying we should stay ion the Eu with freedom of Movement

Then  when a govt of any colour says it wikl build hiuses thecomplain

To me there are just too many people in the UK 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sexton said:

What proportion of the whole UK is classified as continuous urban fabric?

A: 0.1%

"Buildings cover less of Britain than the land revealed when the tide goes out. !

Yes, there's a considerable area even in the most densely developed areas that isn't physically occupied by anything other than a building. But they're still 100% developed, so heaven knows what your point is.

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.





×
×
  • 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.