Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Is Planning Permission The Bane Of Our Society?


Recommended Posts

Again BULL$HIT, why are you trying to play the angle? You know full well property laws will stop anything-negative happening to you. Your taking credit for something you have no play in!

A FREE system makes you ALL FREE. so how is it selfish in any way.

Now, the planning system well that is selfish and extremely VI.

And who moronic is it to say your selfish for wanting to build your own home on your own land. I’m not asking for any handout or help or anything, I just want you to leave me alone. That is not selfish in any way!

Yeah, AFTER the damage has been done. Example:

It takes 3 years to build the housing estate next to you – so you suffer during the construction stage. Then, it takes another 2 for you to collect the evidence needed to show harm to the courts. The it takes a year for the trial date, another 2 years of very expensive legal wrangling, and then 3 years to serve and enforce the demolition (which the associated discomfort).

The more I think about it, the more your system makes sense…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not sure I understand that. Planning is a separate issue to land ownership.

Someone will own the land you want to put you cabin on. You have to buy it from them. If planning is non-existent then land value will rocket and will turn evene the cheapest, smallest £30k house/cabin into something very much more expensive. Possibly on par with existing (after corrections) house prices.

This is a problem I often find with free market versus state solutions - people are so used to the state the alternatives don't make sense and need more explanation. That's entirely my fault for not explaining further and I apologise for not fleshing it out more.

In a free system, any human can go anywhere unmolested.

If you want them to not go to a specific place, there has to be something in it for them. i.e. they get paid for the service of not going onto what you wish to claim. Sounds mad but it works - and did so for a long time until the last century.

Edited by Injin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agreement. The planning system needs to grow some balls. It also needs to go beyond simple land use and get the heart of the matter which is demographic, economics, and politics – your average planner doesn’t have the time of the inclination to deal with these factors, even though that is what planning is.

If it were up to me, planning would face up to it’s responsibilities and do them properly, rather than running in fear from the development industry and central government – then maybe your streets would be a better place.

I can’t help but look at all the new build slums of tomorrow and think ‘remember what they said about the planners in the 60’s? They’ll be saying that about me in 30 years time’. Believe me, I’m trying to stop the built environment going to shit, but without the powers needed it’s an uphill struggle.

Again, you have no right to dictate what someone can buy and what someone can sell.

That is what you are trying to do.

I don’t like that house, so I will stop him for selling it and him for buying it.

As for new builds, most people complain about quality not “looks”. And quality is the realm of building regulation not PP. and again WTF are you to say a person can build at this quality but not at that quality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are you to say what someone can buy or sell?

Do if have the power to enforce you to wear certain cloths? because you look shitty in your normal ones? Should I have that power? I’m sure it will be “nicer on the eye”!

And who is to say your idea of beauty is the correct one?

WTF is wrong with you all!

I understand your point, cells (Injin also), and can agree with it to a certain extent.

However, because I am a resident of my city, because I have an interest in its development and because I pay taxes for the upkeep and maintenance of the city, I am as entitled as you or anyone else to protest about an inner-city buy-to-let hellblock being put up slapbang next to a 15th-century historical timber-framed building.

It is through the buildings and the layout that a city gets its visual signature - that which makes it unique and different to everywhere else. Someone in my city had your philosophy during the 60s and 70s and tore down vast parts of it to build crappy office blocks and a motorway through the centre - now everyone agrees where I live that it has torn a large part of the city's heart out.

I have the right to object if my neighbour is playing his music too loud to spoil my enjoyment of my property. I have the right to complain and ask for intermediation (which may or may not go my way).

If you can't tell the difference between objecting to a completely inappropriate housing development and objecting to someone else's haircut, I am surprised. However, at the same time as objecting to an inappropriate housing development, I have the same right to demand that my fellow citizen is taken care off by the local authorities granting planning permission for further housing developments in a style I and my neighbours feel comfortable with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you have no right to dictate what someone can buy and what someone can sell.

That is what you are trying to do.

I don’t like that house, so I will stop him for selling it and him for buying it.

As for new builds, most people complain about quality not “looks”. And quality is the realm of building regulation not PP. and again WTF are you to say a person can build at this quality but not at that quality!

You've lost me here, I think you have again chosen to ignore the issues outside of your ‘right’ to do what you like. The issue is that you doing what you like has consequences beyond your land – that is the very essence of planning.

For the quality / looks issue – I agree to a point. Planning lacks the necessary controls on ‘looks’ and that is a problem, and quality as you say is not a planning issue but a build regs one.

Stop swearing at me mate, it kind of debases the rare sensible thing you say.

Your points about 'like that house' etc are strange in indicative of a weak and feeble argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a problem I often find with free market versus state solutions - people are so used to the state the alternatives don't make sense and need more explanation. That's entirely my fault for not explaining further and I apologise for not fleshing it out more.

In a free system, any human can go anywhere unmolested.

If you want them to not go to a specific place, there has to be something in it for them. i.e. they get paid for the service of not going onto what you wish to claim. Sounds mad but it works - and did so for a long time until the last century.

I hate to pour reality on your strangeness (which I vehemently disagree with and whole-heartedly enjoy) but under the system you talk about, violence was a key factor…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point, cells (Injin also), and can agree with it to a certain extent.

However, because I am a resident of my city, because I have an interest in its development and because I pay taxes for the upkeep and maintenance of the city, I am as entitled as you or anyone else to protest about an inner-city buy-to-let hellblock being put up slapbang next to a 15th-century historical timber-framed building.

It is through the buildings and the layout that a city gets its visual signature - that which makes it unique and different to everywhere else. Someone in my city had your philosophy during the 60s and 70s and tore down vast parts of it to build crappy office blocks and a motorway through the centre - now everyone agrees where I live that it has torn a large part of the city's heart out.

I have the right to object if my neighbour is playing his music too loud to spoil my enjoyment of my property. I have the right to complain and ask for intermediation (which may or may not go my way).

If you can't tell the difference between objecting to a completely inappropriate housing development and objecting to someone else's haircut, I am surprised. However, at the same time as objecting to an inappropriate housing development, I have the same right to demand that my fellow citizen is taken care off by the local authorities granting planning permission for further housing developments in a style I and my neighbours feel comfortable with.

I can agree with this actually.

Planning is a band aid solution because we don't have freedom yet. The problem is that you pay taxes and are regulated, but when that game is all you are offered, you don't really have much choice but to take it.

Or another way - you need planning because you have planning.

The solution of course is to remove planning. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to pour reality on your strangeness (which I vehemently disagree with and whole-heartedly enjoy) but under the system you talk about, violence was a key factor…

Ditto, I love Injin too - a real character on the forum and a formidable intelligence on him (I presume him). On this one though, I do think he's cgnao-100%-guaranteed wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

1) Buy a field without planning permission.

2) Erect a massive, hollowed out haystack. Must just look like a haystack.

3) Build your house inside the haystack.

4) Four years later, tear down the haystack. TA DA!

All been done. Terry Fiddler built his 'castle' just as above. See ITV's Homes from Hell a while ago. I heard the council made him pull it down. The 'four years' stuff is myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, AFTER the damage has been done. Example:

It takes 3 years to build the housing estate next to you – so you suffer during the construction stage. Then, it takes another 2 for you to collect the evidence needed to show harm to the courts. The it takes a year for the trial date, another 2 years of very expensive legal wrangling, and then 3 years to serve and enforce the demolition (which the associated discomfort).

The more I think about it, the more your system makes sense…

I would object if there was merit and take it to court before the thing was constructed.

There is no harm that will come to me thanks to property law. Not planning laws!

And I am not advocating a complete removal of planning permission, although I won’t mind that. I would want it to be far more lax though.

To me it makes no sense that you can build a barn for pigs but a home for man in the same spot will get you fined or in jail.

To me it makes no sense that a planner can dictate what someone can sell/buy (which is what planning basicly is!)

To me it makes no sense that a planner can choose what he likes the look off to be built!

To me it makes no sense that “virgin” land can not be built upon bar for cows, pigs, sheep, hen, ect

Lots of reasons why the current planning laws are stupid at best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to pour reality on your strangeness (which I vehemently disagree with and whole-heartedly enjoy) but under the system you talk about, violence was a key factor…

I know. I agree.

But the violence was more equalised and the risks to the violent were higher - which makes everyone more free.

Balance of power is everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with this actually.

Planning is a band aid solution because we don't have freedom yet. The problem is that you pay taxes and are regulated, but when that game is all you are offered, you don't really have much choice but to take it.

Or another way - you need planning because you have planning.

The solution of course is to remove planning. :)

You mad bitch! ;)

Under total freedom, you’d better be top of the food chain sonny, because if not don’t expect to be very ‘free’ for long…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a problem I often find with free market versus state solutions - people are so used to the state the alternatives don't make sense and need more explanation. That's entirely my fault for not explaining further and I apologise for not fleshing it out more.

In a free system, any human can go anywhere unmolested.

If you want them to not go to a specific place, there has to be something in it for them. i.e. they get paid for the service of not going onto what you wish to claim. Sounds mad but it works - and did so for a long time until the last century.

Ah.

Moats, big walls, boiling oil. That'll cover it then.

The something in it for you? Stay off my land and you don't get hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would object if there was merit and take it to court before the thing was constructed.

There is no harm that will come to me thanks to property law. Not planning laws!

And I am not advocating a complete removal of planning permission, although I won’t mind that. I would want it to be far more lax though.

To me it makes no sense that you can build a barn for pigs but a home for man in the same spot will get you fined or in jail.

To me it makes no sense that a planner can dictate what someone can sell/buy (which is what planning basicly is!)

To me it makes no sense that a planner can choose what he likes the look off to be built!

To me it makes no sense that “virgin” land can not be built upon bar for cows, pigs, sheep, hen, ect

Lots of reasons why the current planning laws are stupid at best

What are you on about? You’re going to take WHAT to court? You’re going to sue for harm not yet committed? You don’t know very much about law, do you?

RE: your list. None of this makes sense to you because you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry and all that, but you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice; a house was only a couple of quid. In fact Castles weren't much either: http://www.castles-of-britain.com/castle88.htm

although the build times would be a little longer than we are used to.

Yeah, but only the landed gentry have a house anyway - or any money for that matter - the rest are just slaves under threat of violence. Can't fookin' wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point, cells (Injin also), and can agree with it to a certain extent.

However, because I am a resident of my city, because I have an interest in its development and because I pay taxes for the upkeep and maintenance of the city, I am as entitled as you or anyone else to protest about an inner-city buy-to-let hellblock being put up slapbang next to a 15th-century historical timber-framed building.

It is through the buildings and the layout that a city gets its visual signature - that which makes it unique and different to everywhere else. Someone in my city had your philosophy during the 60s and 70s and tore down vast parts of it to build crappy office blocks and a motorway through the centre - now everyone agrees where I live that it has torn a large part of the city's heart out.

I have the right to object if my neighbour is playing his music too loud to spoil my enjoyment of my property. I have the right to complain and ask for intermediation (which may or may not go my way).

If you can't tell the difference between objecting to a completely inappropriate housing development and objecting to someone else's haircut, I am surprised. However, at the same time as objecting to an inappropriate housing development, I have the same right to demand that my fellow citizen is taken care off by the local authorities granting planning permission for further housing developments in a style I and my neighbours feel comfortable with.

Again it is property laws, which will protect you more than any planning laws. Noise would come under property laws not planning.

I do not object to planning laws being an un-written law to keep the place looking uniform for the benefit of all (that is assuming you like all the homes to look the same)

But what i fully object to is planning laws being used to stop expansion, which should not be their task! The proof of that is, you can build a barn for pigs but not a nice home for yourself. That is protectionism, nothing else!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under total freedom, you’d better be top of the food chain sonny, because if not don’t expect to be very ‘free’ for long…

courts enforce contracts

they protect human and property rights

nothing else is required, you would be free, for eternity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again it is property laws, which will protect you more than any planning laws. Noise would come under property laws not planning.

I do not object to planning laws being an un-written law to keep the place looking uniform for the benefit of all (that is assuming you like all the homes to look the same)

But what i fully object to is planning laws being used to stop expansion, which should not be their task! The proof of that is, you can build a barn for pigs but not a nice home for yourself. That is protectionism, nothing else!

I have REPEATEDLY told you:

why you can build a barn and not a house - a barn does not require the same level of service from the local infrastructure as a house (hospitals, schools etc)

property law only works retrospecivly and for those with the money to pursue the claim.

Please rebuff these points in your next post or stop posting.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.