Early-retirement wannabe

Slinky

JoeEngland wrote: »

Funny you should mention screaming brats. Since a new estate was built in the field next to our house there's one family in particular which is full of noisy kids. It means we can often no longer enjoy sitting in our garden because if they're in their's then all we can hear is constant shouting and actual screaming. So when I put in objections to the planning application was it nimbyism? You bet, because the more people that are around us the lower our quality of life is.

Hell is other people.....

DairyQueen

kidmugsy wrote: »

I do hope, though, that nobody will call in the MSE censors for a post like that. I find the increase in censorship across society most unpleasant, and far more of a threat to intelligent conversation than the occasional misjudged post could ever be.

Absolutely agree. I much prefer the opportunity to debate these issues than to stifle those whose tone is somewhat offensive.

I retract labelling all planning officers 'imbeciles'. I'm sure that many planning authorities operate professionally, and within planning law and their own and government policy. Unfortunately, mine isn't one of those. Put it this way... if I wanted to organise a heavy sampling of the best offered by the local brewery I wouldn't contract with our LPA to even lick the stamps on the invites.
:beer:

blisteringblue

Houses on greenbelt are coming whether we like it or not, I live in a nice part of Greater Manchester (used to be Lancashire) and they are building over 2000 houses on an old Railways Works (that should give a clue). Rush hour is already a nightmare. OK Mr Javid says we can have 12 million for a new relief road before he was whisked off to be Home Secretary, but what will that be 3000-4000 extra cars, and they haven't even started thinking about the schools etc.

I drive a lot for work too, and know this is happening everywhere.

Anonymous101

blisteringblue wrote: »

Houses on greenbelt are coming whether we like it or not, I live in a nice part of Greater Manchester (used to be Lancashire) and they are building over 2000 houses on an old Railways Works (that should give a clue). Rush hour is already a nightmare. OK Mr Javid says we can have 12 million for a new relief road before he was whisked off to be Home Secretary, but what will that be 3000-4000 extra cars, and they haven't even started thinking about the schools etc.

I drive a lot for work too, and know this is happening everywhere.

I'm not too far away from you at all, probably take a very similar commute.

We're fighting a losing battle with regards stopping development on greenbelt land. One option is to move further away from the cities when we retire. Cities are the driving force behind much of the development so to my mind finding a nice town some way away from a large city is the way to go.

AlanP_2

DairyQueen wrote: »

You omitted the accusation 'nimby'. I'm surprised.
My point is not zero development, it's about balanced development. It's about increasing population and housing whilst reducing investment in infrastructure.

The LA's housing quota must be met and communities like ours are targeted for a disproportionate amount courtesy of local services which, ironically, have been compromised by the process.

Until the last decade this community developed at a sustainable pace. Plenty of new housing but in small developments of up to 30 and pockets of in-fill. A small industrial estate on the edge of the village, etc. This was sustainable as it was accompanied by a commensurate increase in school places, NHS services, businesses, parking, blah de blah.

We are a mixed community: young/old, balanced across the income spectrum, commuters and local businesses/workers, incomers and families that have lived here for centuries.

The 100-house estate blew the infrastructure. Insufficient local jobs meant more commuters. The GP surgery had no capacity to expand, nor did the schools. The quality of NHS services for the entire community degraded. Our schools reduced their catchment area excluding children previously eligible in some of the surrounding hamlets (who are now bussed to schools further afield). The LA ignored the impact on traffic and parking. Busy people don't walk their children to school, nor do they walk to the shops or the GP surgery. They use cars on their journeys in/out of the village. Children do not walk or cycle to school as large lorries, rush hour traffic, narrow streets and pavements are not a safe mix.

Free bus passes are useless if there is zero public transport to the nearest town/rail station.

There have been zero benefits from economies of scale for our community. The contrary applies. The existing infrastructure has simply been spread more thinly. Concentrating medical and community services in urban centres 25 miles distant is useless if they are inaccessible to those that need them.

The LA has withdrawn funding from most community services coincident with the population increase. The leisure centre is now a charity. The library has been relocated to the school, has limited opening hours, and is staffed by volunteers. The play group/after-school clubs are also part-staffed by trained volunteers. Social events for older people are run and hosted entirely by church/chapel volunteers. Volunteers provide 'first responder' medical assistance and transport to hospital appointments. They also run support groups for young families, carers and those with alzheimers and cancer. The community emergency team are all volunteers. Volunteers clear the pavements, litter pick, run community spaces, care for the elderly and disabled and deal with weather extremes. The local fire service are all volunteers and so are the community police (publicly-funded equivalents withdrawn in the last decade).

Medical and emergency services, public transport and community services may be 'better' for those who live in urban centres courtesy of concentration. Meanwhile, those living further afield wait hours for an ambulance, can't see a doctor without a week-long wait, and fill the void in other services with volunteers as best they can.


This jibe falls on deaf ears. Most of the 'plebs' who have replaced those previously paid by the public purse don't receive any 'wage' and the community has fought long battles to maintain housing and create jobs that meet the needs of all demographics. This is not a posh village; it is a vibrant, mixed community. It has maintained a 'specialness' courtesy of geography, self-sufficiency and balanced development.


You mean things like schools, social services, emergency services, adult education, traffic control, parking, road maintenance, public transport, environmental protection? Odd, I thought all of these fell under the 'remit' of councils but such investment here is conspicuous by its absence. Presumably, such essential spending is focused in towns and cities.



A 2-bed, Victorian semi and a 2-bed flat.

I guess we could have pitched a caravan in the garden of parents' home but a bit chilly in the winter. Or, of course, I could have abandoned my parents to the vagaries of LA-funded care.


Cut off from what? Traffic? Noise? Lorries thundering passed the house? Playing chicken each time I venture to the local shops?
Yes please.

Medical services? Community services?
The LA is doing a good job of achieving this without needing to move house.

The only benefit of staying put is the proximity to local shops but the LA is now prioritising online businesses over walk-in retailers. The first of our shops has been handed-over to a web-exclusive retailer.. It wont be the last.

Why bother shopping in person when I can buy all I need from my living room and have it delivered to the door in the middle of a field? Of course, I will be adding to the local traffic congestion. I will also be one less customer for the local retailers that are used by the LA to justify the over-development which, in reality, is deterring people whose custom those businesses rely on - i.e. those whose lives are spent largely within the locality.

So, do I want to spend retirement in an urban area well supplied with publicly-funded services and other facilities?

Each to his own but I'll take my chances in the middle of that field.

TBH I don't think this is an issue with your LA, it is country wide and will become more prevalent as cuts to LA budgets bite even harder, it is a problem for our society in general.

Central Gov funding, from general taxation, is being cut to the bone, and will be soon be down to about 20% of what it was a few years ago.

The alternative sources of income that Central Gov are "rewarding" are a bonus for all New Homes relative to agreed targets and retention of locally generated Business Rates (have been going in to a central pot and allocated out by Central Gov).

Consequence - LAs are desperate to build new houses and attract new businesses, whether they sell via online or direct makes no difference so long as they occupy a commercial property and pay Business Rates.

To attract new businesses they need an increased supply of housing for staff - so more housing.

Different tiers of LA are responsible for different things and some of your examples are not their responsibility so "blaming" them for everything seems a little harsh:

schools - County or Unitary if they are not Academies and directly funded by Central Gov, and an increasing number are. For those under LA control the funding is supplied by Central Gov on a £x per pupil basis. As more Academies come on stream the "Back office" costs for LA schools becomes an ever increasing proportion of the available funding hence why many LAs have cut back on things like musical instrument availability etc.

social services - County or Unitary, and by far the biggest "consumer" of revenue spending each year, and going up and up and up as the population ages and the NHS become better at "keeping us alive but needing help". I am not saying that is bad BTW, but the bottom line is dead people don't consume any service and so don't cost anything. The county I live in is predicting more than a 50% increase in residents 60+ by 2030.

emergency services - Not an LA responsibility, although some County / Unitary map directly to local Fire Authority.

adult education - Not an LA responsibility in the main, down to local colleges to 60come up with a marketable product. County / Unitary has some responsibility for making sure that those Adults with learning difficulties etc. have a local option for training and education up to about 25 I think it is. Funding comes from DfE, LA just "spend" it locally with specialist providers.

traffic control - Depends what you mean by this, LA does have a role in ensuring overall infrastructure meets local needs BUT very limited funds available.

parking - On or Off Road? Police enforce on road illegal parking, LA provide some public car parks and some on-road parking for residents and public. Private companies also provide car parking.

road maintenance - local roads not national roads e.g. Motorways and main Trunk Roads, that is Highways England or equivalent.

public transport - mixed responsibilities although most offer subsidies to local operators to try and encourage low use / rural services. For example in London it is TfL.

environmental protection - Mainly an Environment Agency responsibility although can be a bit of a murky distinction at times.


I'm sure you have seen what has been happening in Northamptonshire over the last few weeks? This type of situation will become more and more prevalent, there just isn't enough "money" in the system to keep all the wheels lubricated, particularly if it is an LA with a Social Services responsibility as that is where the big bucks go.

Optional "nice to have services" will go first and then essentials will be cut back to the bare, statutory minimums across the country is my prediction.

DairyQueen

AlanP wrote: »

Optional "nice to have services" will go first

I think the last of those disappeared about 5 years ago.

AlanP wrote: »

... and then essentials will be cut back to the bare, statutory minimums across the country is my prediction.

This is my current experience.

pc57

My wife is 60years old and I am 61. We own our chalet type bungalow which is valued about £125,000. My wife works 16hrs per week as a shop assistant and I work full time as a postman.
We have a combined income of approximately £450, and savings of approximately 45,000. What I want to know is, what options are available to allow us to continue to live comfortably and allow us to both retire in the next year?

gadgetmind

pc57 wrote: »

What I want to know is, what options are available to allow us to continue to live comfortably and allow us to both retire in the next year?

What defined benefit pensions do you have and when do these kick in?

What state pension have you qualified for and what are your state pension ages?

DairyQueen

pc57 wrote: »

My wife is 60years old and I am 61. We own our chalet type bungalow which is valued about £125,000. My wife works 16hrs per week as a shop assistant and I work full time as a postman.
We have a combined income of approximately £450, and savings of approximately 45,000. What I want to know is, what options are available to allow us to continue to live comfortably and allow us to both retire in the next year?

You may receive more responses if you post this as a new thread on the pensions board. I assume that the £450 quoted is weekly income and net of tax? Also, you are a member of the RM pension scheme. That's key. It's a complicated scheme so you will need to include years of service in each part of the scheme. For example, have you qualified for any 'age 60' benefits? Will you qualify for any 'age 65' benefits? If the former, how much pension income do you now receive? Is it included in that (net?) £450? Also, how much income do you need to 'live comfortably' as this is a subjective figure.

What pensions do you have (other than RM)? What pensions does your wife have? Have you checked your State Pension forecast? If so, how much are you/your wife forecast to receive?

atush

Yes, we need more info particularly on your pensions and income per month.