2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
I think part of the issue is all the things that have been bolted on to the planning system. Just one small example: fire safety is dealt with under the Building Regulations, but on top of this, we now have to provide fire safety strategies at planning application stage. This is just duplication of regulation on the principle of something should be done. I would query whether fire safety strategies at planning stage make anyone safer or just reduce reputational risk for local authorities.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm not sure that complaining about fire safety red tape in relation to a nuclear power station is your strongest argument.
0 -
This makes sense to me. What happens if the fire regs require a change in design or another right of access?
0 -
Missing my point, which was not limited to nuclear power stations. Planning is about what buildings go where. There are already very very detailed regulations governing fire safety. Ditto environmental protection, workplace safety, etc, etc. There is not a benefit in duplicating this regulation as part of the planning system. If anything it leads to reduced effectiveness as there are inevitably conflicts between the two sets of regs.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Pension values are close to all time highs, interest rates are now normal (so annuities are much higher) and inflation rates are now normal, so anyone retiring now has done well. On top of this, most of the restrictions on pension contributions will not have had such a significant impact on people retiring now.
Assuming that this tax perk would remain while so many other changes have come in seems pretty foolish and very poor planning.
0 -
Perhaps you are missing mine. Nuclear power stations are a different kettle of fish to all other planning decisions, because where you put them leaves an on site legacy potentially forever, to all intents and purposes. I don't think a decision made in the 60s should necessarily be a guide to one we make today.
0 -
So extending your argument, there's no real point saving for your retirement, because the rules can change and you should accept that.
I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. Pensions are a long term game, and as such, any competent government would promote a stable / predictable regime (*) to allow sensible planning, rather than viewing pensions as a "cash cow" to be milked just because they can be, because the government foolishly committed to not raising income tax etc. and is now desperate for cash.
(*) Other than a desperation for cash, why not reduce the TFLS from 25% to 10% over 15 years, reducing the limit 1% per year? That way, no-one faces a "cliff edge" based on when they retire, and thus won't be drawn into making rushed, and likely bad decisions to avoid the impact.
1 -
A phase in may help, but the people who KG says don't really matter are the people who are in a position to save enough to minimise the impact of their burden on the state in later life. That should be encouraged.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Beat me to it.
Although in any event I will be doing my best not to pay tax on the £168k reduction if it comes to pass.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
More than the radioactive ash from a coal-fired power station or the contamination from landfill or a gas or oil storage facility?
In the case of Hinckley that legacy is already set. Twice.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Agree that self-provision should be encouraged. Not sure that using the pensions tax regime as a "play thing" for the Chancellor to raise revenue for pet projects (e.g. pay rises for favoured sections of the public sector) is the right way to achieve this though.
Phasing in major changes to the pension regime is simply a "good thing" as it allows people to plan round what is a very serious subject: being able to afford to live for maybe three decades after retirement. Large changes introduced at short notice are a bad thing by (my) definition, as they scupper sensibly laid plans. That those who are most affected can "take it" (albeit making some sacrifices) doesn't make it right.
0 -
Part of the reason why this is happening is (as already mentioned above) the mistake that Reeves made to box herself in by ruling out changes in rates of income tax, Employees NIC, VAT and CT - which are the biggest sources of tax revenue. So in attempt not to 'scare the horses' in the election campaign, she is now having to raise money in ways that will likely have adverse and unpredictable consequences.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
You don't understand, it's nuclear so it's very scary.
1 -
There is a reason to save for retirement, but you do need to accept the rules can change as evidenced by all the previous ones. This is the reason I would never contribute if I was taxed on the way in. Is it the case that this affects you more than say the cap of £4k per annum contribution or the overall limit of £1m?
0 -
Don't you work on some major infrastructure projecs? If so, presumably you can appreciate that some stuff takes time.
0 -
But they are heavily regulated. You can control it all through the build process and operational processes. As RJS says that can be dealt with post-planning.
0 -
The LTA was the major concern, but that appears to have dropped off the radar, but only after I'd done a fair amount of jiggering around to mitigate the impact should it be reintroduced.
Given my age (56) jiggering around with contribution limits or relief thereon (within reason) is unlikely to have a massive impact on me. The TFLS change would.
But believe it or not, my contributions to this debate are not driven by my personal circumstances. If I get shafted by Reeves then I get shafted by her and will simply make do as best I can. I'm motivated in this debate by what is best overall, and that is a stable, predictable and coherent regime for tax across the whole economy, as this facilitates the best long-term financial decisions.
The "will she, won't she?" element to the first Reeves budget is a poor show, promoting neither predictability nor stability given how long she's had to crunch her numbers and sound out the likely union-imposed constraints. And proposed changes to the pension regime that may cost "ordinary" folk several £10k if they retire at the "wrong time" by a few days/week is simply incoherent.
1 -
No, I am saying they will still do this even with only a quite big tax free lump sum rather than a very big one.
I know I would.
0 -
I agree that a stable tax regime is a very good idea, but I also think this change has been a long time coming and is a good idea. But then I would remove the CGT exemption from main residences as well, so I would not be popular as a politician.
0 -
Time yes, but measured in weeks, not years.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Arguing that there's a problem because you don't know which bits of budget speculation are true is a bit daft isn't it? The budget isn't supposed to be leaked in advance.
0 -
But then it weakens their hand. It is much easier to reject/amend something before it is built than afterwards. For example, if the fire brigade insist on some change, the council are hardly going to either say no or tell the developer to knock everything down and start again.
0 -
It doesn't weaken their hand: local authority planning departments are not there to enforce building safety. The T&C Planning Act is not building safety legislation. Local authority Building Control, the local Fire and Rescue Authority and the HSE have responsibility for building safety. They can all take enforcement action without any reference to planning legislation. They all have authority to require changes to non-compliant buildings irrespective of whether planning consent has been granted or is even needed in the first place. Permitted Development is specifically excluded from the need for planning consent.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I have done in the past, mechanical focus, and a couple of "megaprojects"... there's a lot of busywork to be honest.
0 -
Yes, that was the exact the point I was making. Fire brigade can demand a change that planning would not have accepted at the outset. The planners then have to lump it. For example, they could demand another access road or an escape route that adversely affects someone else. The system is built on the scars of the past.
0 -
No, you have to go and get retrospective planning consent for the change. In the unlikely event that a solution satisfactory to both authorities cannot be agreed the unusable building would have to be demolished. This does happen from time to time. This is obviously why designers need to take advice from the local FRA (amongst others) before lodging a planning application where safety measures are likely to impact on planning matters. Balancing competing requirements is part of the task of designing any building.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
And the planners will then have a much weaker hand which is exactly what I said above.
0 -
They have exactly the same hand that they always had. It's the developer's risk if work is completed without consent.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't know which part of my comment implies a lack of understanding of the system and I'm also perplexed by the number of people who think they can develop a nuclear site more speedily.
0 -
This is getting a little frustrating. Ordering a demolition is much less likely or possible than tweaking the design at the outset. I've provided a very clear example of when this could happen.
0
