Tories scrap house building targets, 'must protect greenbelt and do what locals want'

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Think of the HPI man !

10 potential bidders for every 1 you currently have.

True.

But they'd be English bidders.....

And some things are just more important than money.:p

Imagine how much mileage you could generate on these here forums from such a situation.

Like I said, they'd be English, and some things are just more important......:D

headcone

kabayiri wrote: »

Think of the HPI man !

10 potential bidders for every 1 you currently have.

Imagine how much mileage you could generate on these here forums from such a situation.

Imagine how many houses you could buy if you were capable.

planning_officer

fc123 wrote: »

They don't grant change of use to resi as it affects 'local employment' in that a former business premises goes resi and so no business rates ...which are far higher than CT, a resi unit can't 'employ' anyone (it just houses someone).

It's not about rates vs CT at all - for a start they're different departments and probably don't even speak to each other!

fc123 wrote: »

The council kept saying that all the derelict industrial buildings would be restored and create employment...except the dock/river work ran out in the 70's.
It took 30 years to go from derelict industrial to resi.

That's also missing the point, employment uses change according to technology etc - yes, older industrial type premises may not be so much in demand as times change, but that doesn't mean they can't be converted into premises for different types of business - smaller modern units for start-up businesses for example.

In assessing any planning application to change the use of an employment site into residential, all Councils must base their decision on an up-to-date Employment Land Review (ELR). If a Council refuses such an application and at appeal, they concede that they do not have accurate and detailed predictions on the need for employment land in the future, then they stand little chance of winning the appeal. But if they refuse an application and that refusal is based on detailed and accurate predictions on the need for employment land in the locality in the future, then it is highly likely they will win the appeal. Whilst some land may be better used for housing, if it is all just released for that purpose, towns become dormitory settlements as people have to travel further to work - hardly very sustainable!

fc123

planning_officer wrote: »

It's not about rates vs CT at all - for a start they're different departments and probably don't even speak to each other!


That's also missing the point, employment uses change according to technology etc - yes, older industrial type premises may not be so much in demand as times change, but that doesn't mean they can't be converted into premises for different types of business - smaller modern units for start-up businesses for example.

In assessing any planning application to change the use of an employment site into residential, all Councils must base their decision on an up-to-date Employment Land Review (ELR). If a Council refuses such an application and at appeal, they concede that they do not have accurate and detailed predictions on the need for employment land in the future, then they stand little chance of winning the appeal. But if they refuse an application and that refusal is based on detailed and accurate predictions on the need for employment land in the locality in the future, then it is highly likely they will win the appeal. Whilst some land may be better used for housing, if it is all just released for that purpose, towns become dormitory settlements as people have to travel further to work - hardly very sustainable!

How is it missing the point? The land and buildings were unused for years and years.....now it's mixed use devt with loads of resi included. It's lovely but it could have been built a decade sooner.

It's very difficult to get planning to turn a disused corner shop (the type that were part of a victorian terrace...not a High st) and turn it back not a house. It does happen though but takes ages. 2 near us in London are now resi after being empty for years.

Business rates generate way more £££ than CT but BR go to Govt. BR generate way more £££ than CT.

marklv

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10198180.stm

Say goodbye to housebuilding of any meaning full degree for at least the next five years. Following the concessions on CGT, looks like older homeowners have won again.

This will of course lead to an even bigger housing shortage and higher prices in the long run. If you are a first time buyer it is now practically impossible to buy a house or flat without either parental help or several years of very hard saving. A grim prospect for many. And even when you do buy it's not likely that you are going to get much in the way of value for money in the south-east!

Degenerate

marklv wrote: »

This will of course lead to an even bigger housing shortage and higher prices in the long run. If you are a first time buyer it is now practically impossible to buy a house or flat without either parental help or several years of very hard saving. A grim prospect for many. And even when you do buy it's not likely that you are going to get much in the way of value for money in the south-east!

Indeed. One cannot help but crack a wry smile when one considers how the housing bears on here (carolt excepted) largely blamed Gordon Brown and looked to an incoming Tory administration as their saviour. If they had only bothered to listen to what the Tories were actually saying, it was clear they were going elevate NIMBYism to new heights and reduce housing supply even further.

BLT_2

Fang wrote: »

Country villages should be protected. It's hard enough finding a decent place to live without councils inviting anyone to move in.

I think you will find that most younger people don't actually want to live in country villages. The smell of stale urine from the elderly population is not a pleasant option, I know they didn't have showers when they were young but it really is time to get with the 21st century, start showering, stop trying to pay for their groceries with sixpences and quit whining about having to travel 2 miles by bus to get to the post office when in fact it should be next door to their house.

Davesnave

BLT wrote: »

I think you will find that most younger people don't actually want to live in country villages. The smell of stale urine from the elderly population is not a pleasant option, I know they didn't have showers when they were young but it really is time to get with the 21st century, start showering, stop trying to pay for their groceries with sixpences and quit whining about having to travel 2 miles by bus to get to the post office when in fact it should be next door to their house.

If there is any smell of stale urine coming from me, it's because I pmsl'd at your post!

What a quaint picture you paint of village life, though it's you who wants to get up to date if you think buses are 21st century. We old fogeys all have Honda Jazzes now, y'know.

I can't speak for every village, but where I am, I think many people would like to see 'affordable' (ironic laugh) houses for the young people who've had to leave, taking any prospect of a local school and shop with them. In many places like this, the local topography would allow a virtual doubling in size without seriously harming views. It all depends how it's done. Some very pleasant properties near the centre, for example, were originally council houses.

OTOH it would probably be wrong to bring more young families to a place like this, as there is little employment and decent sized towns are 20-30 miles away. Without major infrastructure changes, like an improved rail link, we'd be creating as many problems as we solved.