Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…453454456458459…501

Comments

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    I'm sure the Labour Party would take this for their front pages.



    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,145
    They’re certainly using aggressive language regarding building new housing. Possibly a bit too much but I assume they’ve decided there are far more people wanting to see housing built than those opposed. My own experiences suggest they may not be right but it certainly requires action.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    Pross said:

    They’re certainly using aggressive language regarding building new housing. Possibly a bit too much but I assume they’ve decided there are far more people wanting to see housing built than those opposed. My own experiences suggest they may not be right but it certainly requires action.

    I think it was more a case of we are going to build more houses. Bluntly, NIMBYs will be ignored. I found it quite refreshing.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    _
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,897
    It will make homes to live in prices fall, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,596
    rick_chasey said:

    That's fine, we just need to know where he lives then developers can build a tower block in his back garden. After all, he needs to lead by example.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,897
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    That's fine, we just need to know where he lives then developers can build a tower block in his back garden. After all, he needs to lead by example.
    Yep, it's a fair point. It's a difficult situation.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,145
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    That's fine, we just need to know where he lives then developers can build a tower block in his back garden. After all, he needs to lead by example.
    Camden so you’ll be hard pressed to build any more around him although he allegedly owns some property / land in the Greenbelt so maybe he’s hoping to develop that.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,145
    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    They’re certainly using aggressive language regarding building new housing. Possibly a bit too much but I assume they’ve decided there are far more people wanting to see housing built than those opposed. My own experiences suggest they may not be right but it certainly requires action.

    I think it was more a case of we are going to build more houses. Bluntly, NIMBYs will be ignored. I found it quite refreshing.
    Sure and vastly better than the Tories previous schizophrenic policies of reforming planning to make development easier whilst introducing localism to make it easier for people to block planning applications they don’t like. I just feel it may not be the vote winner he hopes.

    I also like that he realises it needs a focus on new towns rather than bits of tinkering around the edges of existing urban areas. I’ve felt for ages that is the most efficient way to get liveable new developments.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,509
    Pross said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    They’re certainly using aggressive language regarding building new housing. Possibly a bit too much but I assume they’ve decided there are far more people wanting to see housing built than those opposed. My own experiences suggest they may not be right but it certainly requires action.

    I think it was more a case of we are going to build more houses. Bluntly, NIMBYs will be ignored. I found it quite refreshing.
    Sure and vastly better than the Tories previous schizophrenic policies of reforming planning to make development easier whilst introducing localism to make it easier for people to block planning applications they don’t like. I just feel it may not be the vote winner he hopes.

    I also like that he realises it needs a focus on new towns rather than bits of tinkering around the edges of existing urban areas. I’ve felt for ages that is the most efficient way to get liveable new developments.

    I think it'll help cement his lead with younger voters/families who are at the wrong end of the housing ladder. Labour are ticking boxes in various directions, which is rather the opposite of the Tories who seem to be concentrating all their efforts on alienating as many sections of society as possible (other than the well-off will-vote-for-a-turd-with-a-blue-rosette brigade).
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,596
    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    That's fine, we just need to know where he lives then developers can build a tower block in his back garden. After all, he needs to lead by example.
    Camden so you’ll be hard pressed to build any more around him although he allegedly owns some property / land in the Greenbelt so maybe he’s hoping to develop that.
    Typical leftie then - happy to push policies that don't affect him. A bit like those clamouring for higher taxes knowing they won't have to pay more.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • super_davo
    super_davo Posts: 1,205
    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    That's fine, we just need to know where he lives then developers can build a tower block in his back garden. After all, he needs to lead by example.
    Camden so you’ll be hard pressed to build any more around him although he allegedly owns some property / land in the Greenbelt so maybe he’s hoping to develop that.
    Typical leftie then - happy to push policies that don't affect him. A bit like those clamouring for higher taxes knowing they won't have to pay more.
    So like the typical "rightie" and their policies on immigration or the war on woke then?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    Sure, if you genuinely think there isn't likely to be any further housing development in Camden, then it won't affect him at all. He lives in the Camden that actually exists, though.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    edited October 2023
    kingstongraham said:

    Sure, if you genuinely think there isn't likely to be any further housing development in Camden, then it won't affect him at all. He lives in the Camden that actually exists, though.

    I can absolutely guarantee there will be more housing development in Camden in the next few years.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    edited October 2023
    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not at all. A park is a public amenity and recreational space. 'Green' belt is just land that cannot be developed to restrict the size of cities. At the time London's green belt was instituted there was a general sentiment that large urban areas were inherently bad and that cities should be reduced in size in favour of separate self-contained towns.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    *Yes, I know this can only be done if there is a footpath which would be retained in the event of a development, but nonetheless I think walking a dog along a footpath in a field is better than walking through an estate.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    The difference is the green field next to it. Or golf course. Or woods. Etc.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    The difference is the green field next to it. Or golf course. Or woods. Etc.
    Once upon a time there were green fields between London and Camden. If you build on them all, you just get endless urban sprawl.

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    The difference is the green field next to it. Or golf course. Or woods. Etc.
    Once upon a time there were green fields between London and Camden. If you build on them all, you just get endless urban sprawl.

    I think you are describing the difference between the two quite eloquently there. A small green space in a city isn't the same thing as that.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    edited October 2023
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    *Yes, I know this can only be done if there is a footpath which would be retained in the event of a development, but nonetheless I think walking a dog along a footpath in a field is better than walking through an estate.
    The vast majority of green belt land is private with no public access. Fields are generally brown and empty at this time of year. Farmland is not maintained for recreation.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    The difference is the green field next to it. Or golf course. Or woods. Etc.
    Once upon a time there were green fields between London and Camden. If you build on them all, you just get endless urban sprawl.

    I think you are describing the difference between the two quite eloquently there. A small green space in a city isn't the same thing as that.
    Maybe I am just a NIMBY although I suspect I have had more properties built near me than most people, and I haven't objected to any. That said, they are all brownfield.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,145
    FWIW I went for a run in Banbury a couple of weeks ago and started at a new housing development (Longford Park). The development is on former arable land and whilst the actual development is the usual shite modern, boring house types with a standard layout I was really impressed by the amount of public open space they'd created along with smaller parks / playgrounds. Obviously there is less green space than there was but it is now far more usable by the public than when it was arable land. I think that's why there is a big difference between developing parkland and green space in general.

    This development itself is pretty large with new schools and is about a 15-20 minute walk (possibly using the canal as a more pleasant alternative) to the train station and town centre. It's not something I've been involved with and only discovered it when looking for somewhere to run after a site visit nearby. I did feel there was a missed opportunity to improve the canal towpath to make it a better walking and cycling route from the development to the town centre although there may be plans to do that as the development progresses.

    It will always be a fine balance but ultimately we need more housing and whilst Brownfield should always be the default starting point we won't get where we need to be using Brownfield alone (without completely flattening a lot of older housing and replanning existing towns).
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    *Yes, I know this can only be done if there is a footpath which would be retained in the event of a development, but nonetheless I think walking a dog along a footpath in a field is better than walking through an estate.
    The vast majority of green belt land is private with no public access. Fields are generally brown and empty at this time of year. Farmland is not maintained for recreation.
    Did you see I added another paragraph to cover off precisely this point?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    The difference is the green field next to it. Or golf course. Or woods. Etc.
    Once upon a time there were green fields between London and Camden. If you build on them all, you just get endless urban sprawl.

    I think you are describing the difference between the two quite eloquently there. A small green space in a city isn't the same thing as that.
    Maybe I am just a NIMBY although I suspect I have had more properties built near me than most people, and I haven't objected to any. That said, they are all brownfield.
    I don't know how you could be a NIMBY if you haven't objected to developments near you.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    The difference is the green field next to it. Or golf course. Or woods. Etc.
    Once upon a time there were green fields between London and Camden. If you build on them all, you just get endless urban sprawl.

    I think you are describing the difference between the two quite eloquently there. A small green space in a city isn't the same thing as that.
    Maybe I am just a NIMBY although I suspect I have had more properties built near me than most people, and I haven't objected to any. That said, they are all brownfield.
    I don't know how you could be a NIMBY if you haven't objected to developments near you.

    I'm a hypothetical one.
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 1,951
    FWIW I went for a run in Banbury a couple of weeks ago and started at a new housing development (Longford Park).


    I read this as "and started a new housing development". I thought "bloody hell Pross that was quick work, you'd only gone for a run" 😂
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?

    Not really, no.
    Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?

    *Yes, I know this can only be done if there is a footpath which would be retained in the event of a development, but nonetheless I think walking a dog along a footpath in a field is better than walking through an estate.
    The vast majority of green belt land is private with no public access. Fields are generally brown and empty at this time of year. Farmland is not maintained for recreation.
    Did you see I added another paragraph to cover off precisely this point?
    It's a pretty big point. The romanticised idea of the Green Belt is not the reality. It's not maintained as a recreation area. There are specific land owners like the National Trust, etc. that make a point of public access.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 1,951
    edited October 2023
    I keep making this point. New housing is great but how much of it is affordable? The reality is you are looking at £250-300k for an average house in the UK. If you are single or joint family household with an income under £50k, getting a mortgage is nigh on impossible. If you don't have 15-20% deposit at present you are also very unlikely to get a mortgage.

    I don't see any targeted plans to build houses at varying levels of affordability, taking into account regional salaries, single buyers, families with incomes under £40k etc. Surely building houses is only a piece of the puzzle, if you build houses only small percentages of the population can afford, how are you going to solve a housing crisis?

Categories