Planning changes to encourage new builds

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you might be starting to get yes the distribution of the population will alter and that is what causes the problem. I can only speak for the area I live in and as the number of properties increase so does the strain on the infrastructure. There is a development of 4000 house just about to start near me. It's in the right place and supposedly a new school is part of the development but the access to area is already badly congested and there is no plan to improve it.

your horizons are somewhat limited.

as you say you can only speak for your local area, so have no view on the consequences of the overall population increase of 500,000 per annum nor of the poor standard of housing in London and the SE generally.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

your horizons are somewhat limited.

as you say you can only speak for your local area, so have no view on the consequences of the overall population increase of 500,000 per annum nor of the poor standard of housing in London and the SE generally.

No different you then and at least I live in the affected area of the south east and have experience of the area.

Mistermeaner

Clapton I don't think me or carpet are against house building just saying that building new houses in some areas does result in an increase in population in that area that can have a negative impact on existing infrastructure in that area - the point is thus should be considered when looking at building new houses. It's not even for me about yes/no in this area but where precisely in this area they should be to minimise the impact to existing infrastructure.

CLAPTON

ggb1979 wrote: »

Clapton I don't think me or carpet are against house building just saying that building new houses in some areas does result in an increase in population in that area that can have a negative impact on existing infrastructure in that area - the point is thus should be considered when looking at building new houses. It's not even for me about yes/no in this area but where precisely in this area they should be to minimise the impact to existing infrastructure.

Whether or not we build a single house, the UK population will increase by about 500,000 per annum for the foreseeable future.

The idea that we shouldn't build more properties until some 'ideal' standard of infrastructure is in place, doesn't seem a credible plan.
The population of London and the SE is going to increase whether or not a single house is built.

In the context of an additional million or so extra people, the idea that adding 4,000 new homes in Ukcarper's back yard, is some sort of disaster, is ridiculous.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

Whether or not we build a single house, the UK population will increase by about 500,000 per annum for the foreseeable future.

The idea that we shouldn't build more properties until some 'ideal' standard of infrastructure is in place, doesn't seem a credible plan.
The population of London and the SE is going to increase whether or not a single house is built.

In the context of an additional million or so extra people, the idea that adding 4,000 new homes in Ukcarper's back yard, is some sort of disaster, is ridiculous.

Who said it was a disaster I think it's a good idea and we need the properties it won't really effect me but I bet the new owners won't be so happy when it takes 30 minute to get off estate. With a little extra thought it would not have been to difficult to improve the situation and it's goverment own land so I see no reason why it couldn't have been done.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Who said it was a disaster I think it's a good idea and we need the properties it won't really effect me but I bet the new owners won't be so happy when it takes 30 minute to get off estate. With a little extra thought it would not have been to difficult to improve the situation and it's goverment own land so I see no reason why it couldn't have been done.

I would image the the new owners will be delighted to have their own home, rather than being condemned to living in a rented flat, even if it does take 5 minutes to get off the estate

if its easy to improve the matter, then I would think then that would happen, if your (unlikely) prediction should prove to be true.

anyway much better 4,000 new homes are built, than none

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would image the the new owners will be delighted to have their own home, rather than being condemned to living in a rented flat, even if it does take 5 minutes to get off the estate

if its easy to improve the matter, then I would think then that would happen, if your (unlikely) prediction should prove to be true.

anyway much better 4,000 new homes are built, than none

That's if renter can afford one there not cheap. This is your problem and I can tell you have no real idea what happens when new developments are built. 30 min off estate might be exaggeration but to cover the couple of miles to major road or station is not.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

That's if renter can afford one there not cheap. This is your problem and I can tell you have no real idea what happens when new developments are built. 30 min off estate might be exaggeration but to cover the couple of miles to major road or station is not.

I would suggest that when new developments are built, they usually get sold.
Whether or not they get sold directly to FTB is irrelevant as they increase the total stock of houses (think about it ).

Many people with experience of these things, aren't phased at the thought of driving 2 miles down a country road.

cells

There is only real infrastructure issue which suffers from more house buildingt is road junctions*

And if you build a development of say 1,000 homes you will find that they have on average about ~1,200 cars. However very few of those cars will add to the peak junction use.

Often the junctions that are problems are junctions that are to places of business. For example there has been major improvements to the M1 at luton. Building even 10,000 more homes in Luton would not hurt the problem one bit because the problem is for peak morning traffic into Luton (maybe for the airport + other commuters into luton)

As for the notion that there is no infrastructure development its not true. Another junction on the M1 is getting a major upgrade and its to help with a big development that is planned nearby (actually the roadworks are being done to alleviate HGV and car traffic that is a problem for the existing roads and residents. the new homes will be partly paying for this even though they will add close to nowt in additional use to the junction at peak times)