Worth watching?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

What is 'inappropriate'?

I'm happy that there should be general planning guidelines about general size and structure (no skyscapers in a small cotswold village) but against compulsory 'affordable housing' quotas or the state to decide whether lots of small flats should be build rather than 4 bed houses.

And I see no reason why a builder should not make the best profit possible.

In appropriate in terms of mix, numbers, density in particular areas. Building out of style and nature of the surrounding properties. Building disproportionate numbers where there is insufficient infrastructure to sustain the increase in population. Submitting transport surveys that suggest that everyone will walk or use public transport when it is quite apparent that nobody else in the vicinity does simply to avoid making any provision for the need. Seeking to bend the provision for planning if they don't provide the desired result.

I know you don't like any stipulation such as "affordable housing" but if it isn't prescribed it won't get built or offered. Who is meant to pick up the fall out? You don't like "ghettos" either so I am not sure how you expect to "integrate" the needs of those that can't afford the 4 bedroom detached.

Of course developers have got to make profits otherwise they wouldn't be in business. Unfortunately business involved in key service or product provision tends get reckless and greedy if not regulated/controlled.

grizzly1911

vivatifosi wrote: »

Nick Boles made an interesting point in the last day or so, saying that countryside should be available for redevelopment if it is "boring" and that it does more use to build houses than to leave it as fields. This was as part of an argument with a fellow tory. I have to say, providing infrastructure follows, that's hard to disagree with.

Unfortunately I can only find a reference from the Mail, though I saw this on the TV news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346391/Concrete-greenfield-land-boring-says-minister-row-countryside-development-fellow-Tory-MP.html

Depends how you categorise boring and whose definition you use. Sadly infrastructure and necessary improvements are often slow to follow if at all.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

In appropriate in terms of mix, numbers, density in particular areas. Building out of style and nature of the surrounding properties. Building disproportionate numbers where there is insufficient infrastructure to sustain the increase in population. Submitting transport surveys that suggest that everyone will walk or use public transport when it is quite apparent that nobody else in the vicinity does simply to avoid making any provision for the need. Seeking to bend the provision for planning if they don't provide the desired result.

I know you don't like any stipulation such as "affordable housing" but if it isn't prescribed it won't get built or offered. Who is meant to pick up the fall out? You don't like "ghettos" either so I am not sure how you expect to "integrate" the needs of those that can't afford the 4 bedroom detached.

Of course developers have got to make profits otherwise they wouldn't be in business. Unfortunately business involved in key service or product provision tends get reckless and greedy if not regulated/controlled.

I find it curious that we don't agree that social housing should be funded by we tax payers rather than the opaque corrupt and failing system we currently have.
I'm happy that some of my taxes are allocated for necessary social housing.

In my experience the people that make silly unrealistic assumptions about cycling or public transport are the Local Councils and not builders.
Councils routinely REFUSE to allow for sufficient parking spaces because they believe the fantasy of public transport usage even where none actually exists.

Generally new infrastructure, schools etc should be funded by the state (call it investment) as the money will be recovered via council tax over the next few years.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I find it curious that we don't agree that social housing should be funded by we tax payers rather than the opaque corrupt and failing system we currently have.
I'm happy that some of my taxes are allocated for necessary social housing.

In my experience the people that make silly unrealistic assumptions about cycling or public transport are the Local Councils and not builders.
Councils routinely REFUSE to allow for sufficient parking spaces because they believe the fantasy of public transport usage even where none actually exists.

Generally new infrastructure, schools etc should be funded by the state (call it investment) as the money will be recovered via council tax over the next few years.

I'm not sure where our wires have crossed as I would prefer to see direct investment in social housing. It isn't the housing rather than people that are put in them that causes the problems.

I don't see why a contribution towards certain upgrades shouldn't be made by developers, particularly where they wish to develop and it will add direct impacts. Access required through difficult road arrangements necessitating reworked junctions perhaps not necessarily just access to the site.

Councils don't tend to be too good at putting the social infrastructure in place in a timely manner and their funding continues to be severely constrained with the focus on cutting rather than enhancing services. Happy to take the increased revenue but less so in applying it.Where all new facilities or significant up scaling is required I don't see why a contribution shouldn't be made where blocks of 300/400/500 homes are being added even if it is shared proportionately between developers rather than hitting early birds. If it is a speculative build of 5-10 say I don't see the point. Any contribution should have a defined and agreed use not just lost in the revenue flow.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I'm not sure where our wires have crossed as I would prefer to see direct investment in social housing. It isn't the housing rather than people that are put in them that causes the problems.

I don't see why a contribution towards certain upgrades shouldn't be made by developers, particularly where they wish to develop and it will add direct impacts. Access required through difficult road arrangements necessitating reworked junctions perhaps not necessarily just access to the site.

Councils don't tend to be too good at putting the social infrastructure in place in a timely manner and their funding continues to be severely constrained with the focus on cutting rather than enhancing services. Happy to take the increased revenue but less so in applying it.Where all new facilities or significant up scaling is required I don't see why a contribution shouldn't be made where blocks of 300/400/500 homes are being added even if it is shared proportionately between developers rather than hitting early birds. If it is a speculative build of 5-10 say I don't see the point. Any contribution should have a defined and agreed use not just lost in the revenue flow.

Builders NEVER EVER make a contribute to infrastructure.

Buyers of new build properties make the contribution which is one of the reasons there is a significant shortage of housing (not the ONLY reason however).

I'm glad we agree about the incompetent/corrupt local government practices.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Builders NEVER EVER make a contribute to infrastructure.

Buyers of new build properties make the contribution which is one of the reasons there is a significant shortage of housing (not the ONLY reason however).

I'm glad we agree about the incompetent/corrupt local government practices.

No different to green initiatives being paid for by energy consumers to pay for Mrs Bloggs roof to be insulated or solar panels to be installed at No53.

I'm not keen on DPFs and ERGs being fitted to my car that bumps up the price too.

How does making a contribution result in less housing being built? I can see it making them slightly more expensive, on larger developments, but demand is outstripping supply in many areas. The cost for legal fees, estate agent fees and expenses (especially if it is a buy & sell) may well cost more.

Do things like affordable housing apply to small developments?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

No different to green initiatives being paid for by energy consumers to pay for Mrs Bloggs roof to be insulated or solar panels to be installed at No53.

I'm not keen on DPFs and ERGs being fitted to my car that bumps up the price too.

How does making a contribution result in less housing being built? I can see it making them slightly more expensive, on larger developments, but demand is outstripping supply in many areas. The cost for legal fees, estate agent fees and expenses (especially if it is a buy & sell) may well cost more.

Do things like affordable housing apply to small developments?

you have said it all


It is not much different to other corrupt practices like green initiatives.
many of my rich friends have voltaic cells on their roofs that give good return on capital :
of course poor people are paying for these subsidies through their electricity bills:
why do you celebrate that?

If the policies work then we would have sufficient housing for our needs; maybe you think we have but I don't.

How can demand outstrip supply?

Why is supply artificially restricted; by whom?


as for you car

I'm not keen on DPFs and ERGs being fitted to my car that bumps up the price too.

Surely you accept that corrupt MEPs were paid by manufacturers to make these compulsory; or don't big business do that sort of thing?

ukcarper

In places like London and the surrounding areas I do not think by just building houses for owner occupiers you can solve the problem of housing for everybody. I can't see that it would be possible to build enough houses to bring prices down to a level where lower paid people could afford them.

There will always be a need for low rent housing and in my opinion council/social housing is the best solution. As someone who has a lot of experience of council housing in the 60s I have seen how well it worked. The council estates of the 60s were not unpleasant places to live most people living in them were hard working and respected their property and neighbours.

TruckerT

How about making all new housing, public or private, available either by renting or by purchase (the builders, whether council or developers, would not be allowed to refuse either kind of deal)?

There could then be a right-to-buy for tenants, but without the massive price discounts which (IMHO) kicked off the whole casino culture.

TruckerT

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

you have said it all


It is not much different to other corrupt practices like green initiatives.
many of my rich friends have voltaic cells on their roofs that give good return on capital :
of course poor people are paying for these subsidies through their electricity bills:
why do you celebrate that?

I am not celebrating it is a short term measure, badly thought out. I have an ideal south facing roof but wouldn’t entertain them unless I had no choice.

If the policies work then we would have sufficient housing for our needs; maybe you think we have but I don't.

I have never said they do or that we have. I have made the point that I don’t believe private sector financing and building, alone, will deliver sufficient housing.


How can demand outstrip supply?

I don’t know why you asked that question.

Why is supply artificially restricted; by whom?

Is it artificially restricted or is it sensible balance and checks? The parameters may be in the wrong places and need adjustment.
We could of course reward builders for building on any spare tract of land they desire and sod the consequences. We could open the doors to banks and tell people to help themselves. Not sure that worked to well in the US.
We could reintroduce sensible housing provided directly by the tax payer at the outset and recovered from the occupants through rent or reduce the amount of money spent on HB.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]


as for you car


Surely you accept that corrupt MEPs were paid by manufacturers to make these compulsory; or don't big business do that sort of thing?

Do you have any evidence that corrupt MEPs were paid to introduce added cost and complexity to vehicles? I would like to understand the basis of that claim. Did the manufacturers suggest stringent emission control targets would be in their interest? Perhaps the manufacturers thought it would be a good idea to build in costly failure and repairs to encourage early replacement and hence push up sales?