LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
It depends what you think reasonable s106 costs are and whether they will change. I thought in London they were are £30k/flat on large developments. In a way, it is a bit cheeky as all the flats will pay council tax which covers schooling and other services, but I do understand councils' reluctance to pay for things on behalf of a developer upfront.rjsterry said:
Yes, but difficult to blame people if waiting another year bags you another £50k. Expecting people to sell for below market rate for the public good is a bit optimistic.TheBigBean said:
Nor does the landowner who could drop the price to make it viable.rjsterry said:Sure, but if they kill off the development that they desperately need, they get no money AND no development.
0 -
Nope they're being held back, supposedly to keep prices high. They've had planning approved for a while with no movement and only these have been included in that number.Pross said:
I'd be surprised if they are holding back without good reason. I haven't worked on a site where the developer isn't flogging you to get them on site as soon as possible once they have planning. Future housing need also takes account of committed development I think so will already assume those 400,000 houses are being built and another 400,000 are needed. Biggest issue is where are the labour and materials coming from to build faster?elbowloh said:There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.
Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).0 -
The government isn't blaming developers, they are fully behind them, hence the new planning rule to open up cheap greenbelt landsurrey_commuter said:
exactly, but these are all in the 400,000 which allows the Govt and LA to blame the developersTheBigBean said:
There may be lots of houses with planning, but lacking something else e.g. grid connections, sewers, schoolssurrey_commuter said:
I met somebody who had spent his career working for large developers and this widely accepted “fact”would drive him into fits of rage.elbowloh said:There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.
Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).
To paraphrase him why would a developer not build the maximum number of houses that it could sell?0 -
see TBB's explanation above that these are not shovel readyelbowloh said:
Nope they're being held back, supposedly to keep prices high. They've had planning approved for a while with no movement and only these have been included in that number.Pross said:
I'd be surprised if they are holding back without good reason. I haven't worked on a site where the developer isn't flogging you to get them on site as soon as possible once they have planning. Future housing need also takes account of committed development I think so will already assume those 400,000 houses are being built and another 400,000 are needed. Biggest issue is where are the labour and materials coming from to build faster?elbowloh said:There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.
Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).0 -
I agree we do need more housing and whilst I'd regret the loss of green belt land I accept the situation we are in means that compromise has to happen - it's just not fair for people in my situation (bought first house for 32k - mortgage paid off) to say sorry no more housing.Pross said:
Well exactly so people arguing against building more seems a bit strange or is the argument that new houses should only be built in those areas that already heavily built up and everyone who needs housing should move to them?DeVlaeminck said:rjsterry said:
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.
But it is still a city - being relatively low density compared to other cities doesn't mean England isn't over populated. It also has a shortage of housing, pollution problems which impact on health, congestion and so on. I've lived in London and if that is the model you are putting forward for the UK it's not one I'd welcome.
If anyone can suggest measures that stop population growth that's another matter but in the meantime we need to provide for the population we have and expect to have in the foreseeable future.
My position is just I don't think in the longer term we should keep thinking we can keep developing in the way we have.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
Yes but I don't know why you address that to me as if I've disagreed with any of it ?rjsterry said:
You are just setting some arbitrary population density that you think is 'right', without looking at how population varies wildly across the country. Various things that you find in cities *need* that higher density in order to make them work. Things like good public transport, even mains sewerage aren't viable if you spread everyone out evenly. Concentrating people in urban or suburban areas also means that the vast majority of land is left as countryside. If we spread everyone out evenly, there would be more pollution and congestion spread over a larger area, not less.DeVlaeminck said:rjsterry said:
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.
But it is still a city - being relatively low density compared to other cities doesn't mean England isn't over populated. It also has a shortage of housing, pollution problems which impact on health, congestion and so on. I've lived in London and if that is the model you are putting forward for the UK it's not one I'd welcome.
If you go back and read what my initial objection was it's to urban sprawl - the piecemeal expansion of towns and cities which builds in the necessity of journeys creating congestion and pollution and the loss of countryside that entails.
As I don't see any prospect of change in the way we develop urban areas my preference would be that we address population growth which at least in part helps drive the need for more homes. Of course it's not the only factor.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
May not be shovel ready.surrey_commuter said:
see TBB's explanation above that these are not shovel readyelbowloh said:
Nope they're being held back, supposedly to keep prices high. They've had planning approved for a while with no movement and only these have been included in that number.Pross said:
I'd be surprised if they are holding back without good reason. I haven't worked on a site where the developer isn't flogging you to get them on site as soon as possible once they have planning. Future housing need also takes account of committed development I think so will already assume those 400,000 houses are being built and another 400,000 are needed. Biggest issue is where are the labour and materials coming from to build faster?elbowloh said:There are 400,000 homes already with planning permission that the developers aren't building and holding back.
Just build those and you wouldn't need to build on the greenbelt (not that they need to though).
All 400,000?
Edit. And why should this additional 400,000 on green belt land with likely no utilities or infrastructure be anymore shovel ready than things that have had approval for a while already?
1 -
It was the idea that the UK is too densely populated that I took issue with. I think we could make our towns and cities significantly more densely populated and spread out less. So we agree on that point. I also think changing the way we develop urban areas to make them better places to live is far easier than trying to control population growth, which is pretty slow anyway. The problem is not too many people but localised lack of housing supply caused by the disparity between housing costs and earnings.DeVlaeminck said:
Yes but I don't know why you address that to me as if I've disagreed with any of it ?rjsterry said:
You are just setting some arbitrary population density that you think is 'right', without looking at how population varies wildly across the country. Various things that you find in cities *need* that higher density in order to make them work. Things like good public transport, even mains sewerage aren't viable if you spread everyone out evenly. Concentrating people in urban or suburban areas also means that the vast majority of land is left as countryside. If we spread everyone out evenly, there would be more pollution and congestion spread over a larger area, not less.DeVlaeminck said:rjsterry said:
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.
But it is still a city - being relatively low density compared to other cities doesn't mean England isn't over populated. It also has a shortage of housing, pollution problems which impact on health, congestion and so on. I've lived in London and if that is the model you are putting forward for the UK it's not one I'd welcome.
If you go back and read what my initial objection was it's to urban sprawl - the piecemeal expansion of towns and cities which builds in the necessity of journeys creating congestion and pollution and the loss of countryside that entails.
As I don't see any prospect of the way we develop urban areas my preference would be that we address population growth which at least in part helps drive the need for more homes. Of course it's not the only factor.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I would like to see a new car free town. That feels like something worth sacrificing a bit of land for.0
-
All towns (apart from the new ones) were all car free previously. None of them were built for cars.0
-
Happy to accept there are alternatives. Not claiming any expertise I just look at the rate of expansion of urban areas - in terms of area rather than population - and it all seems to be very car dependent.rjsterry said:
It was the idea that the UK is too densely populated that I took issue with. I think we could make our towns and cities significantly more densely populated and spread out less. So we agree on that point. I also think changing the way we develop urban areas to make them better places to live is far easier than trying to control population growth, which is pretty slow anyway. The problem is not too many people but localised lack of housing supply caused by the disparity between housing costs and earnings.DeVlaeminck said:
Yes but I don't know why you address that to me as if I've disagreed with any of it ?rjsterry said:
You are just setting some arbitrary population density that you think is 'right', without looking at how population varies wildly across the country. Various things that you find in cities *need* that higher density in order to make them work. Things like good public transport, even mains sewerage aren't viable if you spread everyone out evenly. Concentrating people in urban or suburban areas also means that the vast majority of land is left as countryside. If we spread everyone out evenly, there would be more pollution and congestion spread over a larger area, not less.DeVlaeminck said:rjsterry said:
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.
But it is still a city - being relatively low density compared to other cities doesn't mean England isn't over populated. It also has a shortage of housing, pollution problems which impact on health, congestion and so on. I've lived in London and if that is the model you are putting forward for the UK it's not one I'd welcome.
If you go back and read what my initial objection was it's to urban sprawl - the piecemeal expansion of towns and cities which builds in the necessity of journeys creating congestion and pollution and the loss of countryside that entails.
As I don't see any prospect of the way we develop urban areas my preference would be that we address population growth which at least in part helps drive the need for more homes. Of course it's not the only factor.
Not only that, new housing is now being built on the edge of our local road race and club time trial course - so that's my bit of nimbyism ![Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
That was before a lot of suburbs were bolted on and roads redone. None of which means that a car free town couldn't be successful.elbowloh said:All towns (apart from the new ones) were all car free previously. None of them were built for cars.
0 -
Unfortunately "these people" are essentially all of us. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and neither would you. We are all NIMBY's much as people would like to deny on the internet.shirley_basso said:
These people sound like NIMBY ***** to mejohn80 said:
It might be relatively low density however I doubt you will find many takers for their existing houses to be demolished with the promise of a pokey flat in a high rise. There is the rub. People don't want green spaces built on but don't want change in their local area to higher density housing but people need to live somewhere.rjsterry said:
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.1 -
Those of us who own homes, yes.john80 said:
Unfortunately "these people" are essentially all of us. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and neither would you. We are all NIMBY's much as people would like to deny on the internet.shirley_basso said:
These people sound like NIMBY ***** to mejohn80 said:
It might be relatively low density however I doubt you will find many takers for their existing houses to be demolished with the promise of a pokey flat in a high rise. There is the rub. People don't want green spaces built on but don't want change in their local area to higher density housing but people need to live somewhere.rjsterry said:
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.0 -
It is a lot wider than that. Even tenants don't like change albeit I grant you they are less invested in an area emotionally as they can be moved on every 6 months.kingstongraham said:
Those of us who own homes, yes.john80 said:
Unfortunately "these people" are essentially all of us. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and neither would you. We are all NIMBY's much as people would like to deny on the internet.shirley_basso said:
These people sound like NIMBY ***** to mejohn80 said:
It might be relatively low density however I doubt you will find many takers for their existing houses to be demolished with the promise of a pokey flat in a high rise. There is the rub. People don't want green spaces built on but don't want change in their local area to higher density housing but people need to live somewhere.rjsterry said:
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.0 -
It was a joke aimed at RC whose parents raised him to associate NIMBYs with ***** (see one or two pages back - his post sparked this discussion)john80 said:
Unfortunately "these people" are essentially all of us. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and neither would you. We are all NIMBY's much as people would like to deny on the internet.shirley_basso said:
These people sound like NIMBY ***** to mejohn80 said:
It might be relatively low density however I doubt you will find many takers for their existing houses to be demolished with the promise of a pokey flat in a high rise. There is the rub. People don't want green spaces built on but don't want change in their local area to higher density housing but people need to live somewhere.rjsterry said:
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.1 -
One of many I took on my little walk today, not very densely populated but Wales' three largest cities and probably 70% of the population is within an hour. I could see for miles and miles in every direction but only saw 2 towns (Brecon and possibly Talgarth). There were more but they were nestled out of sight in valleys. It was absolutely glorious up there.
3 -
It looks glorious. Our last office jolly was a weekend doing much the same circuit as you've described.Pross said:One of many I took on my little walk today, not very densely populated but Wales' three largest cities and probably 70% of the population is within an hour. I could see for miles and miles in every direction but only saw 2 towns (Brecon and possibly Talgarth). There were more but they were nestled out of sight in valleys. It was absolutely glorious up there.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
M&S now closing more of their stores. At this rate half the highstreets could be turned into residential. I'm mean, that's what the future holds doesn't it?
I do keep thinking for short term gain being able to buy products direct, has destroyed an industry which provided employment and tax. Covid has only accelerated this.0 -
I would have thought, like we've seen thus far, the high street will become more about services rather than products.focuszing723 said:M&S now closing more of their stores. At this rate half the highstreets could be turned into residential. I'm mean, that's what the future holds doesn't it?
I do keep thinking for short term gain being able to buy products direct, has destroyed an industry which provided employment and tax. Covid has only accelerated this.
Hairdressers, coffees shops, kids playparks etc. People moan about the hipsterification of high streets but they are shops that are fairly internet immune.0 -
That's true, but I don't think it will be enough to fill the vacancies of all the retail lets.0
-
Depends on rent levels tbf.focuszing723 said:That's true, but I don't think it will be enough to fill the vacancies of all the retail lets.
If they go low enough round here my wife will almost certainly set up a yoga studio, for example.
0 -
Suggest she checks out something called Sook Spaces.rick_chasey said:
Depends on rent levels tbf.focuszing723 said:That's true, but I don't think it will be enough to fill the vacancies of all the retail lets.
If they go low enough round here my wife will almost certainly set up a yoga studio, for example.0 -
-
Business rates are still a massive issue.rick_chasey said:
Depends on rent levels tbf.focuszing723 said:That's true, but I don't think it will be enough to fill the vacancies of all the retail lets.
If they go low enough round here my wife will almost certainly set up a yoga studio, for example.
Although I’m all for property being turned over to housing.
We have a supply shortage of housing and a surplus of town centre properties.
Not rocket science to net one against the other.
More people living in in the towns will make the remaining retail landscape more prosperous too.0 -
I admire your optimism. People don't want to live on high streets (and instead near to them) and dead high streets mean people leave the centres ,not the other way around. (look at Doncaster...)morstar said:
Business rates are still a massive issue.rick_chasey said:
Depends on rent levels tbf.focuszing723 said:That's true, but I don't think it will be enough to fill the vacancies of all the retail lets.
If they go low enough round here my wife will almost certainly set up a yoga studio, for example.
Although I’m all for property being turned over to housing.
We have a supply shortage of housing and a surplus of town centre properties.
Not rocket science to net one against the other.
More people living in in the towns will make the remaining retail landscape more prosperous too.0 -
Do you really think people won’t live on the high street?rick_chasey said:
I admire your optimism. People don't want to live on high streets (and instead near to them) and dead high streets mean people leave the centres ,not the other way around. (look at Doncaster...)morstar said:
Business rates are still a massive issue.rick_chasey said:
Depends on rent levels tbf.focuszing723 said:That's true, but I don't think it will be enough to fill the vacancies of all the retail lets.
If they go low enough round here my wife will almost certainly set up a yoga studio, for example.
Although I’m all for property being turned over to housing.
We have a supply shortage of housing and a surplus of town centre properties.
Not rocket science to net one against the other.
More people living in in the towns will make the remaining retail landscape more prosperous too.
Have you heard of Manchester?
Every fucker lives on the high street and they can’t build quickly enough.
I agree not all properties will work but there is a housing shortage and a market for lots of types of accommodation. I agree most people wouldn’t want a living room on the high street frontage but typically the frontage is a small part of a bigger property that can make apartment living possible.
Many factors make towns successful or otherwise.0 -
this all over, it really is not rocket science to shrink the High St to a vibrant core and leave it to the developers to make it work for residential.morstar said:
Business rates are still a massive issue.rick_chasey said:
Depends on rent levels tbf.focuszing723 said:That's true, but I don't think it will be enough to fill the vacancies of all the retail lets.
If they go low enough round here my wife will almost certainly set up a yoga studio, for example.
Although I’m all for property being turned over to housing.
We have a supply shortage of housing and a surplus of town centre properties.
Not rocket science to net one against the other.
More people living in in the towns will make the remaining retail landscape more prosperous too.
no need to go above 3-4 stories and repopulate the centre of towns.
0 -
I'd have though some of the older traditional department stores would be perfect for conversion to residential.0
-
https://www.pragcap.com/everything-wrong-with-the-money-printer-go-brrrr-meme/
So a lot of you have voiced concerned about the inflationary pressure of QE, despite the evidence from the last decade.
Here's an American article (same logic, just different names for entities) describing why QE isn't inflationary (and is in fact about fiscal policy)0
