Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

This is a country we want, is it? No rules, just do what you want. Privitise the profit, socialise the loss. Big tree in the way of your hot tub? Cut it down, who cares. Shortcuts for the special people.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/12/laws-protect-scams-enforcement-gutted

None of these cuts and dysfunctions were necessary: they are all political choices. It’s no accident that workers are being illegally ripped off: minimum-wage inspectors are now so scarce that businesses, on average, can expect a visit once every 250 years. It’s no accident that businesses are taking risks with their workers’ lives: health and safety enforcement has been gutted. It’s no accident that the Environment Agency appears to have stopped prosecuting river pollution by farmers, or that Natural England can no longer prevent illegal habitat destruction: both have lost around two-thirds of their funding over the past 10 years. It’s no accident that London has become the world’s money-laundering capital. It’s the business model. In most cases, the laws required to protect us exist. But without enforcement, they’re a dead letter.

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

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.

My point is that far from being "concreted over" it's mostly green.

"all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%. "

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

My point is that far from being "concreted over" it's mostly green.

"all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%. "

But the amount that's actually developed is considerably higher than that. Otherwise you're trying to equate most of the interior of an airport perimeter fence (largely not occupied with buildings) with a national park.

And who's to say that 2% constitutes an "only"? Differing levels of development in different countries is highly noticeable, and most of them will be considerably less than the UK. It's noticeable enough within different parts of the UK, even the rural parts of the SE are noticeably more densely populated than, say, Cumbria, let alone a lot of Scotland, where only the central belt is noticeably densely populated. Try using a monitor where 2% of the pixels are faulty (let alone the above 10% which more accurately represents developed for England - can't remember the exact number). I think you'll be replacing it pretty quickly.

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

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

????? Are you thick? The damage just doesnt reverse when the Tories get in FFS - or you think those extra tens of millions "disappear" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sexton said:

My point is that far from being "concreted over" it's mostly green.

"all the buildings in the UK - houses, shops, offices, factories, greenhouses - cover 1.4% of the total land surface. Looking at England alone, the figure still rises to only 2%. "

Ah but there might be a crested newt in a pond and you would need to check that before thinking about building in the countryside.  Pull the other one I say.  The reality is its about choking supply to herd the proles into a lifetime of debt servitude.  

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

????? Are you thick? The damage just doesnt reverse when the Tories get in FFS - or you think those extra tens of millions "disappear" 

Am I thick? I thought the rather obvious point was that whilst it's fine to criticise Labour for ridiculous immigration-driven population growth whilst they were in power the Tories have had plenty of time to do something about it but instead have just continued with it. Yeah, Labour policies really got it all going but they've been out for long enough that they can't be blamed for it carrying on the way it has done (even though they would've done if they were still in power).

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have stirred a hornets nest here. Lets answer a few points.

Anyone who thinks this developers charter is about lowering houses prices or building affordable homes is a fool. Developers didn't pay 11m in donations to the Tories so they could build millions of low profit affordable houses, let alone drive down house prices and the value of their developments.

The last round of planning reform led to a large number of new estates being built in my area, mainly on greenfield site. I have yet to see one affordable house built. The vast majority are poorly built executive detaches, most in the 200-500k range. We must have some really well paid cleaners, retail staff and teachers assistance if they can afford those kind of prices.

As for the laughable claim that only a low percentage of UK land is built on, so we can have lots of new development. I can't believe anyone is daft enough to fall for that piece of Tory propaganda. You can't work out the population the UK can carry by looking at google maps and saying that is awfully green.

The constraints are no just land, they are water supply, waster disposal, food supply, the supply of services, protecting the environment, land at risk for flooding and loads of other constraints.

Two economists had a bet about food prices a decade ago. About whether they would go up or down, the guy who bet on up won and that matters. He made his prediction based on the level of population growth and the limited amount of farmland and food resources available.

World populations are at unsustainable levels and food is only going to get more expensive and more difficult to obtain. To build on prime farmland is absolutely insane when we are facing that kind of future. Alas it is what our idiot government wishes to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Only those who haven't seen the complete [email protected] developers build when left to their own devices.  

I remember walking around the Isle of Dogs some time ago  - not long after Docklands was deregulated and built over.  It split into soulless brochure safe buildings and a complete dogs dinner of utter sh1te.

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

So I have stirred a hornets nest here. Lets answer a few points.

Anyone who thinks this developers charter is about lowering houses prices or building affordable homes is a fool. Developers didn't pay 11m in donations to the Tories so they could build millions of low profit affordable houses, let alone drive down house prices and the value of their developments.

The last round of planning reform led to a large number of new estates being built in my area, mainly on greenfield site. I have yet to see one affordable house built. The vast majority are poorly built executive detaches, most in the 200-500k range. We must have some really well paid cleaners, retail staff and teachers assistance if they can afford those kind of prices.

Agree with a lot of this.

Imho when governments come out with solutions the first question you have to ask is what problems have the government identified ?

For example was 'Help to Buy' actually 'Help to Sell?'.

This solution also looks suspiciously like its designed to help the big developers and agents but otherwise keep the plebs powerless.

The plebs can have whats doled out to them and aspire to no more. The problems weren't loose credit or how we procure our homes or the lack of social housing,  but any attempt to control the quality of  the sh1te that was doled out.

Feck that - what we need is another crony capitalist stitch-up.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, opt_out said:

Come on, think it through... Why do they get away with building crap at the moment ?

Well one reason is expressed by a lot of posters on HPC, the type yelling "build more! Build more! Build more!" and when any objection is raised starting crying about "nimbies" - that attitude helps to promote an environment where anything is OK if it gets called a house (even if it backfires to producing objections about any development).

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bartelbe said:

As for the laughable claim that only a low percentage of UK land is built on, so we can have lots of new development. I can't believe anyone is daft enough to fall for that piece of Tory propaganda. You can't work out the population the UK can carry by looking at google maps and saying that is awfully green.

The plebs think it's crowded because they are forced to live in the gaps between the gentry's estates.

The figures are from http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/ .

 

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

The plebs think it's crowded because they are forced to live in the gaps between the gentry's estates.

The figures are from http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/ .

 

People think it's crowded because it is. It's not just about whether or not there's physically more room to fit more houses on (there's plenty if that's all you're looking at), it's how many people are nearby, at both small and large distances. How far is it to the next city, the next large town? Could more people be physically accommodated? Sure (although you could just as easily argue "no" since the country can't feed itself anyway). But that's not a good definition of "overcrowded" (after all you can accommodate a dozen people in a two up, two down but it's still very overcrowded if you do so).

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, opt_out said:

Come on, think it through... Why do they get away with building crap at the moment ?

Low regulation, see cladding..... low taxes and high prices, see SD holiday and globalisation....the gift that keeps on giving.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, winkie said:

Low regulation, see cladding..... low taxes and high prices, see SD holiday and globalisation....the gift that keeps on giving.;)

The cladding one is still as muddled as hell as far as I can make out; I'm still unsure whether it actually met the regulations as they were at the time and the regulations were just crap, or whether it's stuff that's suitable in some other situations but not this but had ended up there anyway (can easily happen even without malice), or whether there was a deliberate effort to obfuscate (some suggestions of this).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

People think it's crowded because it is. It's not just about whether or not there's physically more room to fit more houses on (there's plenty if that's all you're looking at), it's how many people are nearby, at both small and large distances. How far is it to the next city, the next large town? Could more people be physically accommodated? Sure (although you could just as easily argue "no" since the country can't feed itself anyway). But that's not a good definition of "overcrowded" (after all you can accommodate a dozen people in a two up, two down but it's still very overcrowded if you do so).

I would restrict immigration. 3million new households means 3million extra houses.

Having said that. even in the SE there is cartloads of space. Between J12 and14 of the M4 - you could fit 20 new towns with adequate distancing.

Its not just a UK thing, rho: https://www.city-journal.org/inflated-housing-costs-impose-hidden-costs-on-hubs-of-american-innovation

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

Having said that. even in the SE there is cartloads of space. Between J12 and14 of the M4 - you could fit 20 new towns with adequate distancing.

You could fit them with space between them, yes. But the area would get a very crowded sense to it.

"Overcrowded" is a subjective, not objective definition; by the time you get to the unquestionably objective point (i.e. physically can't fit any more) you're well past the point where everyone would agree it's overcrowded. It's very much about quality of life - again, a subjective concept, because an aspect of it that clearly matters little to some can do a great deal to others. At any rate put those 20 new towns in and the area will have a very different feel to it.

There's very much a large chunk of "I'm not bothered by it, I don't understand anyone who is, and therefore I couldn't care less" going on.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2021 at 08:09, 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

Most land in the UK is owned by *very rich people*. In other words, by favours - like Johnson and Dyson (one of this country's biggest landowners).

https://whoownsengland.org/

https://tlio.org.uk/the-uks-50-biggest-landowners-revealed-lovemoney-com/

https://abcfinance.co.uk/blog/who-owns-the-uk/

Maybe start with confiscating it? Then there would be more than enough to go around.

 

 

Edited by jonb2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Most land in the UK is owned by *very rich people*. In other words, by favours - like Johnson and Dyson (one of this country's biggest landowners).

https://whoownsengland.org/

https://tlio.org.uk/the-uks-50-biggest-landowners-revealed-lovemoney-com/

https://abcfinance.co.uk/blog/who-owns-the-uk/

Maybe start with confiscating it? Then there would be more than enough to go around.

 

 

And they get paid to own it!

" Jeremy R Drax (Richard’s brother and a London property magnate), who appears to have a stately pad by the coast and is getting paid £853,547 to keep the surrounding farmland in good stewardship "

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Riedquat said:

The cladding one is still as muddled as hell as far as I can make out; I'm still unsure whether it actually met the regulations as they were at the time and the regulations were just crap, or whether it's stuff that's suitable in some other situations but not this but had ended up there anyway (can easily happen even without malice), or whether there was a deliberate effort to obfuscate (some suggestions of this).

So why are we not building our homes eco friendly, solar, wind, heat pumps.......in Denmark hot water is sent underground to homes from community generators.....homes are highly and safely insulated, walls, roofs and windows......cutting bills and saving energy.......maybe we should look around thd world and see what others are doing better.😉🙂🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, winkie said:

So why are we not building our homes eco friendly, solar, wind, heat pumps.......in Denmark hot water is sent underground to homes from community generators.....homes are highly and safely insulated, walls, roofs and windows......cutting bills and saving energy.......maybe we should look around thd world and see what others are doing better.😉🙂🙂

The communal heating idea where suitable sounds good. Power-wise I'd far rather we just spent more effort in fusion research, with the rest just being a stopgap measure.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The communal heating idea where suitable sounds good. Power-wise I'd far rather we just spent more effort in fusion research, with the rest just being a stopgap measure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

Anything has got to be better than what we have now.......problem is required long-term investment, we prefer short-term quick profit wins.......no building company cares how big your heating bill will be or if there are local services and infrastructure to support extra people, or the jobs that will be required to repay the debt accumulated to buy what is built.....will the homes last as long as the mortgages?;)😉

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.