large developments of homes - who should design it.

Pross

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

We should probably be blaming all the singlies though as it is the upsurge in people moving out of the family home over the last 30 years that helps create the current housing shortage but no-one ever seems to mention that!

On the other hand we should probably not - as long as the singlies aren't producing sprogs then they are, in the long term, reducing demand. It is perhaps most constructive not to pick on any single source though inner city investment flats surely take a significant chunk of blame (ie the sort of property young people would love but can't afford and older people can afford but wouldn't be seen dead in - ie nobody who wants one can afford one so they end up empty). They are making a lot of such flats in Leeds right now though Manchester is 10 times worse for it).

That was slightly tongue in cheek, it's really the fault of old people living too long (or, as Brexiteers will tell us, the immigrant hordes).

In seriousness though it stands to reason that population growth means more housing is needed.

Pross

NorvernRob wrote:

There are over 800 new houses being built in the area I work. There are no plans for a new school, yet every school in the area is already over-subscribed (my wife teaches at one of them). There are already families with children going to different schools because they could only get one place at each!

If that's the case it is an issue to take up with the local authority. They will set the requirements for the developer so must have told them there were adequate school places (or have taken contributions towards some future plan - that should be easy to check). You can't expect a developer to provide facilities if they aren't told there is a need for them.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

It really isn't a matter of some greedy Developer seeing a patch of land and then simply applying for permission to build as many houses as possible on it (or not always). As for schools and infrastructure the money from S106 contributions does get used, there are all sorts of complicated formulas to assess need, we are working on several school expansions and a new school funded from these sources. However, the best solution to these issues is actually to have much larger developments where the facilities can be built alongside them but these tend to get even more flack.

With regards to the S106. Do you not think that an obligation to construct facilities should based on the number of dwellings built and the cost be born in full to the developer who must build at the same time as their houses.
Eg:
50 houses = 1x primary school classroom extension plus Extn to medical centre.
100 houses = 2x primary school classroom + 1× Secondary school classroom.....etc
Jumping to
850 houses = 1x New primary school. 2x expansion of secondary schools. New medical centre. Sports fields. Community centre.

In too many instances Pross the S106 money is NOT being spent on easing the burden on existing stretched resources.

If you want to see a new housing scheme at its very worst then check out the new housing for Army families on south side of Tidworth. Talk about cramming in. Not a tree or shrub to be seen. I would think it's a real miserable existence to live on it.

No, not really. The local authority should be best placed to determine need and it isn't always as simple as that. For example, it may be a development is being built at the western side of town but the local school is taking children from the other side at present because the school over there is above capacity so what is needed is for the school the other side of town to be expanded to free up space in the school nearer the development. By doing things through S106 contributions the local authority can pool the money from several sites to get the best result. I'm pretty sure they are obliged to use the monies raised for their intended purposes. For example, Bristol has been taking S106 money for decades towards a major public transport scheme (originally trams were proposed but they are finally building the Metrobus system).

What you suggest can and does happen if, through the planning process, immediate need is shown to exist and as I've said on larger developments the facilities are incorporated into the Masterplan and conditioned in the planning consent. For example, there may need to be a new primary school open prior to 100th occupation, a medical centre by 200th occupation and comprehensive school by 250th occupation plus local centres etc. However, the one issue that does tend to get overlooked is how to staff the extra resources. You can build all the extra school or medical facilities you want but if there aren't enough teachers or GPs to staff them you have a problem.

My work takes me onto a lot of newly built developments and my feeling is that in many cases they are vastly improved from those of the 80s and 90s. You do still get high density developments but these are usually in areas where there is high demand and a shortage of land. Also, some of the big boys churn out some horrible standard house types still but others do have imagination (we work with a couple of mid sized developers that do some really nice designs and one of the smaller developers we work with is building a new estate that includes thatched houses in keeping with the surroundings).

I think I was still at junior school when Bristol first started talking about (re)introducing a tram system, so at least 30 years ago .

thistle_

oxoman wrote:

reducing parking to 1.6 car spaces per dwelling.

1.6? Wow that's spacious. I think 1.1 is the requirement around here, and we are a ruralish county with a big county town.
Developers still put in applications with less than 1.1 spaces per house and say as it's a town centre so the parking isn't needed - and the planning department accept this :roll:
Result is cars parked all over the footways/verges/cycle lanes and blocking junctions, bus services get stopped because they can't get through, people complain, council say sorry nothing we can do.

I don't think our town/parish councils bothered responding to the consultation on our local development plan. To be honest there's not much point because 99% of the comments are just put in the bin because the council knows best (or at least knows best what the housebuilders have lobbied them for).
They know so well that when they submitted their development plan to the planning inspectorate a few years ago it was rejected and they were told to do better. :roll:

Pross

Some people really need to spend a year working on the Developer side of the planning system. You'll soon lose some of the cynicism that Planning Officers and / or Councillors are somehow in a Developer's pocket when you see the hoops that have to be jumped through to get anywhere. Even when you satisfy the Council's officers, who are their experts on policy in various areas, and get a recommendation for approval the Councillors (who usually have no technical knowledge) can, and often do, refuse the application against recommendations and their own policies just because they don't like it. This leaves their officers having to defend a refusal at appeal when they previously supported it and often ends up in wasted Council Tax payers money as the Planning Inspector will review it against the published national and local policies.

As I've said previously, even once you get a consent getting Conditions discharged and technical approvals to actually build can take months or even years especially if the scheme was approved against an officer's recommendation.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

Some people really need to spend a year working on the Developer side of the planning system. You'll soon lose some of the cynicism that Planning Officers and / or Councillors are somehow in a Developer's pocket when you see the hoops that have to be jumped through to get anywhere. Even when you satisfy the Council's officers, who are their experts on policy in various areas, and get a recommendation for approval the Councillors (who usually have no technical knowledge) can, and often do, refuse the application against recommendations and their own policies just because they don't like it. This leaves their officers having to defend a refusal at appeal when they previously supported it and often ends up in wasted Council Tax payers money as the Planning Inspector will review it against the published national and local policies.

As I've said previously, even once you get a consent getting Conditions discharged and technical approvals to actually build can take months or even years especially if the scheme was approved against an officer's recommendation.

All sounds very familiar. It can take months and thousands of pounds of professional fees to get consent even for a single one-off house or an extension.

robert88

Young couples 'trapped in car dependency'

the scramble to build new homes is producing houses next to bypasses and link roads which are too far out of town to walk or cycle, and which lack good local buses.

Persimmon director ‘forgets’ about £45m bonus and doesn’t know what average worker is paid

rolf_f

Robert88 wrote:

Young couples 'trapped in car dependency'

the scramble to build new homes is producing houses next to bypasses and link roads which are too far out of town to walk or cycle, and which lack good local buses.

Persimmon director ‘forgets’ about £45m bonus and doesn’t know what average worker is paid

What is the point of earning that much?

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Young couples 'trapped in car dependency'

the scramble to build new homes is producing houses next to bypasses and link roads which are too far out of town to walk or cycle, and which lack good local buses.

Persimmon director ‘forgets’ about £45m bonus and doesn’t know what average worker is paid

What is the point of earning that much?

That much is never enough.

pblakeney

Robert88 wrote:

Young couples 'trapped in car dependency'

the scramble to build new homes is producing houses next to bypasses and link roads which are too far out of town to walk or cycle, and which lack good local buses.

Persimmon director ‘forgets’ about £45m bonus and doesn’t know what average worker is paid

It is easy to forget about payments you haven't seen because your accountant has shipped them to the Cayman Islands, or similar.

robert88

Rolf F wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Young couples 'trapped in car dependency'

the scramble to build new homes is producing houses next to bypasses and link roads which are too far out of town to walk or cycle, and which lack good local buses.

Persimmon director ‘forgets’ about £45m bonus and doesn’t know what average worker is paid

What is the point of earning that much?

Do you have the faintest idea how much it costs to run just one fairly modest luxury yacht?

No? Thought not.

pblakeney

I saw a very nice boat in Antibes harbour.
Googled it and it was available for hire. At $1 million a week. :shock: