LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I quite like London's parks. They provide a relaxing place to visit. I imagine some people feel the same about the countryside near them. It's not that hard to understand.rick_chasey said:
My point ---->TheBigBean said:
Why not just build some flats over London's parks? If you did it well, you could even include some space for sport on one of the levels.rick_chasey said:lol what's the actual threat of new homes for people in the countryside?
Think the logic through there.
Your point ---->
Sure, why not build them?
What's threatening about new houses ffs?2 -
People gotta live somewhere.
Maybe you all are natural NIMBYs. *shrugs* I was brought up that NIBMYs were four letter words.-1 -
Don't worry, the Conservative manifesto said "We will protect and enhance the Green Belt. We will improve poor quality land, increase biodiversity and make our beautiful countryside more accessible for local community use. In order to safeguard our green spaces, we will continue to prioritise brownfield development, particularly for the regeneration of our cities and towns."0
-
rick_chasey said:
People gotta live somewhere.
Maybe you all are natural NIMBYs. *shrugs* I was brought up that NIBMYs were four letter words.
Blimey, that sound like a complete lie!kingstongraham said:Don't worry, the Conservative manifesto said "We will protect and enhance the Green Belt. We will improve poor quality land, increase biodiversity and make our beautiful countryside more accessible for local community use. In order to safeguard our green spaces, we will continue to prioritise brownfield development, particularly for the regeneration of our cities and towns."
1 -
I guess if you have no respect for other people's wishes then it's probably quite easy to dismiss them.rick_chasey said:People gotta live somewhere.
Maybe you all are natural NIMBYs. *shrugs* I was brought up that NIBMYs were four letter words.2 -
Manifesto:
Places we want to live in
Since 2010 there has been a considerable
increase in homebuilding. We have
delivered a million homes in the last five
years in England: last year, we delivered
the highest number of homes for almost
30 years.
But it still isn’t enough. That is why we will
continue our progress towards our target of
300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s.
This will see us build at least a million
more homes, of all tenures, over the next
Parliament – in the areas that really need
them. And we will make the planning
system simpler for the public and small
builders, and support modern methods of
construction.
Crucially, however, we need to make sure
homes are built in a way that makes sense
for the people already living in the area and
for the families moving in:
Infrastructure first. We will
amend planning rules so that the
infrastructure – roads, schools, GP
surgeries – comes before people move
into new homes. And our new £10
billion Single Housing Infrastructure
Fund will help deliver it faster.
Beautiful, high-quality homes. We
will ask every community to decide
on its own design standards for new
development, allowing residents a
greater say on the style and design of
development in their area, with local
councils encouraged to build more
beautiful architecture.
Building safety. Following the
Grenfell tragedy there has rightly
been a focus on building safety. No
report or review can truly capture the
heartache, sorrow, anger and grief that
many people feel. We have already
committed to implementing and
legislating for all the recommendations
of the Hackitt Review and the first
phase of the independent inquiry. We
will continue to work with industry,
housing associations and individuals to
ensure every home is safe and secure.
And we will support high rise residential
residents with the removal of unsafe
cladding, and continue with our
rigorous process of materials testing.
Community housing and self-build.
We will support community housing
by helping people who want to build
their own homes find plots of land and
access the Help to Buy scheme. We
will also support communities living
on council estates who want to take
ownership of the land and buildings
they live in.
Environmentally friendly homes. We
will support the creation of new kinds
of homes that have low energy bills
and which support our environmental
targets and will expect all new streets to
be lined with trees.
Homes for the Future. We will
encourage innovative design and
technology to make housing more
affordable, accessible, and suitable
for disabled people and an ageing
population.
The Green Belt. We will protect
and enhance the Green Belt. We will
improve poor quality land, increase
biodiversity and make our beautiful
countryside more accessible for local
community use. In order to safeguard
our green spaces, we will continue to
prioritise brownfield development,
particularly for the regeneration of our
cities and towns.0 -
Developers would prefer Brownfield sites, far easier to get consent and there are issues such as flooding and drainage that are easier to deal with (you need to show a betterement rather than putting in systems that will reduce runoff to Greenfield levels). The problem is that despite popular opinion there aren't that many suitable Brownfield sites around that are economically viable and that don't already have some form of option or consent on them - don't forget that just because a site is currently vacant it doesn't mean it is still available, remediation can take years before anyone even starts building work. The sites also need to be in areas which need the housing and every authority will have an amount it has an obligation to deliver so if those are rural areas the housing will almost certainly be Greenfield.skyblueamateur said:
It's all on greenbelt land. Developers are creaming themselves as it's a lot cheaper then developing on brownfield sites.rick_chasey said:“Threat of new homes” come on mate, work that one out yourself.
They are proposing 5,000 new homes on greenbelt west of Coventry based on dodgy ONS figures. They are counting students in, but not out again.
I would not have so much of an issue if it was affordable homes but it will be a raft of 6-700k homes with 'affordable' housing at 350k-ish.
If you are able to point the developers in the Coventry area to suitable, available Brownfield land and negotiate a percentage of the sale with the landowner you will make a killing.0 -
Join up and pay your money I guess. Orraloon paid to join up and look what value for money it got himkingstongraham said:How do I vote for Gove to be Conservative leader?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If I only move out to the countryside later this year as planned, does this mean I'm not one yet?rick_chasey said:
Aaahahahahaha tell me countryside people aren’t c unts 💀💀💀
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There are brownfield sites that have been identified. The big issue in this particular case are the ONS figures and amount of homes needing to built. They're predicting population growth of 30% in Coventry due to the nature of them counting students in but not out again. Also, the huge amount of student flats that have been built or being built (which is brilliant for freeing up housing stock) aren't counted in the figures.Pross said:
Developers would prefer Brownfield sites, far easier to get consent and there are issues such as flooding and drainage that are easier to deal with (you need to show a betterement rather than putting in systems that will reduce runoff to Greenfield levels). The problem is that despite popular opinion there aren't that many suitable Brownfield sites around that are economically viable and that don't already have some form of option or consent on them - don't forget that just because a site is currently vacant it doesn't mean it is still available, remediation can take years before anyone even starts building work. The sites also need to be in areas which need the housing and every authority will have an amount it has an obligation to deliver so if those are rural areas the housing will almost certainly be Greenfield.skyblueamateur said:
It's all on greenbelt land. Developers are creaming themselves as it's a lot cheaper then developing on brownfield sites.rick_chasey said:“Threat of new homes” come on mate, work that one out yourself.
They are proposing 5,000 new homes on greenbelt west of Coventry based on dodgy ONS figures. They are counting students in, but not out again.
I would not have so much of an issue if it was affordable homes but it will be a raft of 6-700k homes with 'affordable' housing at 350k-ish.
If you are able to point the developers in the Coventry area to suitable, available Brownfield land and negotiate a percentage of the sale with the landowner you will make a killing.
I have no issue with homes being built if they were affordable or social housing. This won't be the case though.0 -
Hey, you want to get rid of that German rubbish with those tiny little wheels and get a Range Rover now.Stevo_666 said:
If I only move out to the countryside later this year as planned, does this mean I'm not one yet?rick_chasey said:
Aaahahahahaha tell me countryside people aren’t c unts 💀💀💀0 -
It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.
For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
Definitely touched a nerve didn't I?
It was the 'threatened' by new homes bit that I think is really just bad bad behaviour and needs to be called out.
You can think the plan is a bad idea - I have no view on it or an idea about it.
But to be threatened by new homes is beyond selfish.0 -
Coventry Council has a policy that all developments over 25 units will provide 25% of the total as affordable housing (social / affordable rental needs to be a minimum of 10-15% depending on the current concentration with the higher figure being applied in areas where the existing concentration is low).skyblueamateur said:
There are brownfield sites that have been identified. The big issue in this particular case are the ONS figures and amount of homes needing to built. They're predicting population growth of 30% in Coventry due to the nature of them counting students in but not out again. Also, the huge amount of student flats that have been built or being built (which is brilliant for freeing up housing stock) aren't counted in the figures.Pross said:
Developers would prefer Brownfield sites, far easier to get consent and there are issues such as flooding and drainage that are easier to deal with (you need to show a betterement rather than putting in systems that will reduce runoff to Greenfield levels). The problem is that despite popular opinion there aren't that many suitable Brownfield sites around that are economically viable and that don't already have some form of option or consent on them - don't forget that just because a site is currently vacant it doesn't mean it is still available, remediation can take years before anyone even starts building work. The sites also need to be in areas which need the housing and every authority will have an amount it has an obligation to deliver so if those are rural areas the housing will almost certainly be Greenfield.skyblueamateur said:
It's all on greenbelt land. Developers are creaming themselves as it's a lot cheaper then developing on brownfield sites.rick_chasey said:“Threat of new homes” come on mate, work that one out yourself.
They are proposing 5,000 new homes on greenbelt west of Coventry based on dodgy ONS figures. They are counting students in, but not out again.
I would not have so much of an issue if it was affordable homes but it will be a raft of 6-700k homes with 'affordable' housing at 350k-ish.
If you are able to point the developers in the Coventry area to suitable, available Brownfield land and negotiate a percentage of the sale with the landowner you will make a killing.
I have no issue with homes being built if they were affordable or social housing. This won't be the case though.0 -
GET OFF MY LAND!!!!!!!!rick_chasey said:Definitely touched a nerve didn't I?
It was the 'threatened' by new homes bit that I think is really just bad bad behaviour and needs to be called out.
You can think the plan is a bad idea - I have no view on it or an idea about it.
But to be threatened by new homes is beyond selfish.0 -
One possibility is to remove sole ownership stamp duty to near zero and crank up 2nd home stamp, and also charge foreign owners more in taxation.
The main idea being that people who have lots of value in their property aren't disincentivised to keep moving around, keeping the pool of property liquid, but discourages people from using multiple home ownership as a form of income. Now - somehow that has to be squared with rental markets for which there is a demand and need.
It does feel that using property prices and associated bank debt to fuel economic growth is a bit backwards.0 -
RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.DeVlaeminck said:It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.
For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.0 -
The Times is telling the readers how people feel about it. In case you didn't realise, newspapers are printed entertainment based on fear, so the headline makes perfect sense for a newspaper to write.rick_chasey said:Definitely touched a nerve didn't I?
It was the 'threatened' by new homes bit that I think is really just bad bad behaviour and needs to be called out.
You can think the plan is a bad idea - I have no view on it or an idea about it.
But to be threatened by new homes is beyond selfish.0 -
It says the areas are threatened though not the people. Ultimately, if you are going to build on rural land then it is by definition threatened surely?rick_chasey said:Definitely touched a nerve didn't I?
It was the 'threatened' by new homes bit that I think is really just bad bad behaviour and needs to be called out.
You can think the plan is a bad idea - I have no view on it or an idea about it.
But to be threatened by new homes is beyond selfish.
It's still a pointless headline but your reaction was a bit strange.0 -
With Union Jack hub caps...better than an eagle motif.focuszing723 said:
Hey, you want to get rid of that German rubbish with those tiny little wheels and get a Range Rover now.Stevo_666 said:
If I only move out to the countryside later this year as planned, does this mean I'm not one yet?rick_chasey said:
Aaahahahahaha tell me countryside people aren’t c unts 💀💀💀"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Some probably argued the Walled City in Kowloon wasn't overpopulated.Pross said:
RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.DeVlaeminck said:It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.
For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
It's only the townies that drive Wange Wovers.Stevo_666 said:
With Union Jack hub caps...better than an eagle motif.focuszing723 said:
Hey, you want to get rid of that German rubbish with those tiny little wheels and get a Range Rover now.Stevo_666 said:
If I only move out to the countryside later this year as planned, does this mean I'm not one yet?rick_chasey said:
Aaahahahahaha tell me countryside people aren’t c unts 💀💀💀0 -
Don't worry, I wouldn't have a big 4x4 if you paid me. Happy with my German rubbish.Dorset_Boy said:
It's only the townies that drive Wange Wovers.Stevo_666 said:
With Union Jack hub caps...better than an eagle motif.focuszing723 said:
Hey, you want to get rid of that German rubbish with those tiny little wheels and get a Range Rover now.Stevo_666 said:
If I only move out to the countryside later this year as planned, does this mean I'm not one yet?rick_chasey said:
Aaahahahahaha tell me countryside people aren’t c unts 💀💀💀"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Shush now with your well-informed viewpoint.Pross said:
Developers would prefer Brownfield sites, far easier to get consent and there are issues such as flooding and drainage that are easier to deal with (you need to show a betterement rather than putting in systems that will reduce runoff to Greenfield levels). The problem is that despite popular opinion there aren't that many suitable Brownfield sites around that are economically viable and that don't already have some form of option or consent on them - don't forget that just because a site is currently vacant it doesn't mean it is still available, remediation can take years before anyone even starts building work. The sites also need to be in areas which need the housing and every authority will have an amount it has an obligation to deliver so if those are rural areas the housing will almost certainly be Greenfield.skyblueamateur said:
It's all on greenbelt land. Developers are creaming themselves as it's a lot cheaper then developing on brownfield sites.rick_chasey said:“Threat of new homes” come on mate, work that one out yourself.
They are proposing 5,000 new homes on greenbelt west of Coventry based on dodgy ONS figures. They are counting students in, but not out again.
I would not have so much of an issue if it was affordable homes but it will be a raft of 6-700k homes with 'affordable' housing at 350k-ish.
If you are able to point the developers in the Coventry area to suitable, available Brownfield land and negotiate a percentage of the sale with the landowner you will make a killing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!Pross said:
RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.DeVlaeminck said:It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.
For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
now you are talking my language, have a flat rate of 1% on all transactions with no exemptions.shirley_basso said:One possibility is to remove sole ownership stamp duty to near zero and crank up 2nd home stamp, and also charge foreign owners more in taxation.
The main idea being that people who have lots of value in their property aren't disincentivised to keep moving around, keeping the pool of property liquid, but discourages people from using multiple home ownership as a form of income. Now - somehow that has to be squared with rental markets for which there is a demand and need.
It does feel that using property prices and associated bank debt to fuel economic growth is a bit backwards.
SteveO can dust off his Laffer Curve as I read somewhere that pre-covid property transactions were 30% of the total back in the 1990s before they started jacking up stamp duty.0 -
Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?rjsterry said:
Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!Pross said:
RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.DeVlaeminck said:It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.
For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.
I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.0 -
The whole point of the stamp duty rise was to reduce transactions at the high end and stop them being traded like gold.surrey_commuter said:
now you are talking my language, have a flat rate of 1% on all transactions with no exemptions.shirley_basso said:One possibility is to remove sole ownership stamp duty to near zero and crank up 2nd home stamp, and also charge foreign owners more in taxation.
The main idea being that people who have lots of value in their property aren't disincentivised to keep moving around, keeping the pool of property liquid, but discourages people from using multiple home ownership as a form of income. Now - somehow that has to be squared with rental markets for which there is a demand and need.
It does feel that using property prices and associated bank debt to fuel economic growth is a bit backwards.
SteveO can dust off his Laffer Curve as I read somewhere that pre-covid property transactions were 30% of the total back in the 1990s before they started jacking up stamp duty.0 -
People can feel all sorts of things; doesn't make them true. London is objectively a pretty low density city by world standards.TheBigBean said:
Are you stating that it is a fact that people can't feel somewhere is too densely populated?rjsterry said:
Aaaaargh, when will people stop repeating this nonsense?!Pross said:
RJS will be able to provide his map that disproves this again.DeVlaeminck said:It's often not rural areas anyway - it's green belt on the edge of the city and its the city dweller that puts up with the increased traffic, pollution, loss of places to walk etc while a different local authority coins in the council tax.
For me much of England is over populated - I'd rather put a brake on population growth than ever increasing urban sprawl.
I don't really like the in between places that are neither rural or urban, so much of the south-east.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes, I've always thought that should happen if the agenda is to genuinely to help people onto the property ladder. It wouldn't go down well with some of the Tory faithful though.shirley_basso said:One possibility is to remove sole ownership stamp duty to near zero and crank up 2nd home stamp, and also charge foreign owners more in taxation.
The main idea being that people who have lots of value in their property aren't disincentivised to keep moving around, keeping the pool of property liquid, but discourages people from using multiple home ownership as a form of income. Now - somehow that has to be squared with rental markets for which there is a demand and need.
It does feel that using property prices and associated bank debt to fuel economic growth is a bit backwards.
Make it prohibitive to have a fun little extra pad get away which in reality is a necessity for the average family. Instead of more homes being available to local people, they get a sprawl of new $h1t boxes plonked on greenbelt. The only green they see is their Green Wheelie bin.0
