Planning changes to encourage new builds

mwpt

ukcarper wrote: »

This is the trouble with the build with no consideration any objection is classed as nimby while in many cases they are legitiment. Infrastructure does not always follow or if it does it' take far to long. As I've already pointed out the infrastructure does not. Have to be built in advance just in conjunction with new building.

I'm struggling to understand this. Our population is growing. We need more housing. I don't actually know what you are proposing as a solution, it seems you are just objecting... and that's it.

My proposal is that we build housing to house the growing population, and the infrastructure will grow to satisfy it.

Mistermeaner

I don't think it's an objection to building new homes, just that location and infrastructure need consideration rather than just throwing the homes up anywhere.

My point about 10 pages back was that it's all well and good throwing up houses on brownfield sites but that these sites may not be the best location due to the difficulties and cost of subsequent infrastructure improvements required to service both the new and existing homes.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

If it exists at all its a failure of the state. Why is all non state infrastructure willingly and eagerly provided. Shops and offices are built. Warehouses and sorting offices are built. If there is a need for a school or a hospital the state should provide tje money and the builders will build

it makes no sense at all to place the burden on new homes especially considering old homes did not contribute at their time

Who saying the burden should be on the builders although I can see no reason why all the increase in value from changing green belt of farm land should go to builders and existing owners.

ukcarper

mwpt wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand this. Our population is growing. We need more housing. I don't actually know what you are proposing as a solution, it seems you are just objecting... and that's it.

My proposal is that we build housing to house the growing population, and the infrastructure will grow to satisfy it.

You are blinkered yes we need house we need them in the right places and we need the infrastructure to support them. Just allowing planning permission willy nilly is not the ans.

The infrastructure does not always follow or if it does it's years to late.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

You are blinkered yes we need house we need them in the right places and we need the infrastructure to support them. Just allowing planning permission willy nilly is not the ans.

The infrastructure does not always follow or if it does it's years to late.

if builders develop housing in the 'wrong ' places then people won't buy them and the builders will stop building there.

if people buy the housing, then they are not, in general, in the wrong place.

whilst it doesn't conform to a all embracing soviet style planning mantra, it works pretty well for the vast majority of essential things.

better to live in an imperfect world with lots of housing than an imperfect world with inadequate housing

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

if builders develop housing in the 'wrong ' places then people won't buy them and the builders will stop building there.

if people buy the housing, then they are not, in general, in the wrong place.

whilst it doesn't conform to a all embracing soviet style planning mantra, it works pretty well for the vast majority of essential things.

better to live in an imperfect world with lots of housing than an imperfect world with inadequate housing

Agree in general with the free market principle but where this struggles in practice is when supply is already heavily constrained, people will take whatever is offered as long as it's an improvement even if it is suboptimal - if someone had a choice between a new build brownfield house with !!!!! infrastructure or a new build green belt with good infrastructure all other things being equal they would go for the Greenfield. If you offer just the brown of course they'll take it but it doesn't make it the best solution

ukcarper

The other thing is the strength(I don't just mean numbers) of opposition depends on whether planning is granted so sometimes the less better option is chosen.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

if builders develop housing in the 'wrong ' places then people won't buy them and the builders will stop building there.

if people buy the housing, then they are not, in general, in the wrong place.

whilst it doesn't conform to a all embracing soviet style planning mantra, it works pretty well for the vast majority of essential things.

better to live in an imperfect world with lots of housing than an imperfect world with inadequate housing

But with some thought and a little bit of effort you could have better housing and a reasonable world.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

But with some thought and a little bit of effort you could have better housing and a reasonable world.

we do have a reasonable country (world is a little ambitious given its current state)

lack of infrastructure is not the reason we don't build : an excuse by the nippys maybe but not the cause.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

we do have a reasonable country (world is a little ambitious given its current state)

lack of infrastructure is not the reason we don't build : an excuse by the nippys maybe but not the cause.

Not true in my case, I'm not a nimby have no reason to be as I live in the middle of an urban sprawl. Nimbys might use it as an excuse sometimes that is justified sometimes it's not and that is not a reason to ignore the problem.