2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge

Literally it is. We thought we knew what we were doing in 1967, but those reactors were hideously inefficient and by today's standards not that safe. By 2067 we will look back on what we know now and wonder what we were thinking.

The existence of two old reactors might mitigate against a third, in some respects. Populations change, it's not in exactly the same place wrt roads etc.

I dunno, but I'd guess there's more the forum collectively doesn't know about planning considerations for new nuclear reactors than it collectively knows.

I do know there's no planned Fukishima B though, so it's at least possible that old decisions weren't correct.

Yes, I know. I was highlighting previous meddling and back to £10k is much lower than previously when there was no cap.

Planning authorities don't make design tweaks. That is for the applicant or their design team. Planning authorities either grant consent or refuse it. If a proposal is close to being acceptable, a planning officer may advise on minor adjustments that can be made to the design in order to achieve consent, but they are not obliged to.

Of course a sensible developer will engage a design team who will consult with all the statutory authorities in advance, seeking their advice and adjusting the proposals accordingly before submitting a planning application. This is because pre-construction design changes are much, much cheaper than enforced post construction alterations. Planning authorities offer pre-application advice as a paid service and likewise the FRA, so there is no excuse for not preparing a compliant design in advance.

It is possible to gain planning consent for a development which cannot comply with fire safety regulations or other building regulations and vice versa. Any developer proceeding with such a scheme will likely end up with a building they can't sell, rent or use. They'll probably be suing their design team out of business as well. It's not a problem for the planning authority. The enforcement process for work not complying with a consent is the same as work where no consent has been sought.

I referenced the development period. You made it about planning saying it should be quicker, but even if the decision is quick, the period of preparation for that and discharging all the conditions takes a long time.

Sure. Developing large and complex buildings takes time. The current Planning system adds excessively to that time with extremely limited benefit to the public. Duplicating the requirements of other statutory authorities just adds more time with no benefit in increased safety. It also adds to the administrative burden of authorities that are already unable to meet their own service standards and do not have the expertise to assess the duplicative requirements that they are imposing.

What happens when the developer walks away?

Only if there is value in doing so. No one will want an end of life nuclear power station, for example. And all the time spent waiting for a new magic developer, the local area has the inconvenience of a white eleplant with none of the amenities that were promised.

Sorry, how have we jumped from the scenario of a developer failing to fully consider fire safety at design stage and starting construction before realising that they cannot achieve compliance within their planning approval?

If someone abandons a half built power station decommissioning is going to be a lot easier.

because of woke

The "will she won't she?" element to the budget planning isn't in itself an issue re how effectively people can plan for the future based on the tax regime. As you suggest, planning based on budget leaks isn't really viable as leaks aren't made for the benefit of the public. The issue here is that this pattern of behaviour demonstrates that Reeves likely doesn't know what to do, within her self-imposed constraints of no increases in the rate of income tax, VAT and NICs and the new constraint of not doing anything to raise the tax bill of well paid public sector workers. As she doesn't know what to do, the chances of her doing something that is good for the nation as a whole re tax policy feels lower than I'd hope pre-GE.

The planning issue arises from policies where one's tax bill changes very suddenly. Whilst one can argue that reductions in TFLS should be anticipated, there are many aspects of tax policy that could change adversely (re pensions, there have been leaks / speculation recently around the LTA, the TFLS, tax relief on contributions and employer tax/NICs relief on contributions, and "guessing" right is not necessarily that easy) and effective tax / retirement planning avoiding "cliff edges" re tax bills shouldn't have to rely on second guessing what the politicians might do. It should rely on having a sensible lead-time for coherent changes to be introduced.

So to summarise your position from this and previous posts:

1. A stable tax regime is a "very good idea"
2. Changing the TFLS regime is a "good idea"
3. Reasonable to conclude that you consider (1) to be more important than (2) as (1) is "very good" whereas (2) is only "good"
4. You favour implementing a reduction of the TFLS from circa £250k to £100k immediately
5. Reasonable to conclude that (4) is not part of a stable tax regime, as retiring on one day vs another shortly afterwards would alter tax liability by up to £60k
6. So you appear to favour doing something that is only a "good idea" which directly works against the stable tax regime that you consider to be a "very good idea"

Seems a little inconsistent. Surely you should favour the very good idea against the good idea.

Arguing that there's a problem because you don't know which bits of budget speculation are true.

I'm not. I'm arguing two things:

1. There's a problem because Reeves doesn't know what she's doing and is unlikely (other than by random chance I guess) to implement a sensible policy re the tax regime for pensions
2. Unrelated to (1) if a financially significant change to the pension regime (specifically tax in this discussion but the argument holds in general e.g. retirement age) is introduced it should be phased in, to eliminate "cliff edge" impacts and allow sensible retirement planning.

I have no issue with Reeves changing the TFLS regime if she phases it in e.g. by reducing the % that is tax free from 25% to 10% over 10-15 years. Even the Tories got the idea of long lead times to allow sensible planning re increasing the state pension age.

In a sensible world, the pensions regime would only be changed to more effectively promote retirement savings by the masses. It shouldn't be changed simply to raise cash to plug holes in the budget elsewhere. Income tax, NICs and VAT are there for that purpose!

Re expectations on the TFLS, oddly, the fact it's been highlighted as "at risk" for so long (IIRC, Nigel Lawson referred to it as the "much loved British anomaly when he was Chancellor) makes it morally harder to remove. Nothing has changed in the 30+ years since the Lawson comment in respect of whether it's a good idea or not, so changing the TFLS regime now is arbitrary in a way that - for example - implementing a measure to deal with the impact of the recent high inflation wouldn't have been.

The maximum that can be taken as a tax free allowance has definitely changed in the last 30 years.