Planning changes to encourage new builds

Mistermeaner

All for building homes and all for Brownfield development but should be conditional on some sort infrastructure improvement. Where I live (cheshire) there is alot of brownfield development going on but the existing infrastructure can't cope - single file bridges with 3 way traffic lights and tight winding roads through listed victorian streets. Add to that the fact that there is little local employment with most people working in near by big towns and cities means the roads are chaos. Not to mention the fact that schools and doctors etc don't seem to expand to cope.


Oh dear I sound like my nimby mum.

CLAPTON

ggb1979 wrote: »

All for building homes and all for Brownfield development but should be conditional on some sort infrastructure improvement. Where I live (cheshire) there is alot of brownfield development going on but the existing infrastructure can't cope - single file bridges with 3 way traffic lights and tight winding roads through listed victorian streets. Add to that the fact that there is little local employment with most people working in near by big towns and cities means the roads are chaos. Not to mention the fact that schools and doctors etc don't seem to expand to cope.


Oh dear I sound like my nimby mum.

If the population of your area is growing anyway, they will put a stain on the traffic system, schools and doctors whether or not more houses are being built.
If the population isn't growing then you don't need more houses or infrastructure unless you wish to improve the overall housing standards.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

If the population of your area is growing anyway, they will put a stain on the traffic system, schools and doctors whether or not more houses are being built.
If the population isn't growing then you don't need more houses or infrastructure unless you wish to improve the overall housing standards.

It's nowhere near as simple as that more property encourages more people into that area if infrastructure is not put in place it will cause problems.

princeofpounds

The only way to build enough houses is to get councils to lead the way.

The only way is to get councils out of the way, given they are the main blocker of development.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

It's nowhere near as simple as that more property encourages more people into that area if infrastructure is not put in place it will cause problems.

The population is growing by about 500,000 per annum, whether new houses are built or not.
It therefore makes no sense to argue against more house building just because the additional infrastructure doesn't precede it.
Of course, there is an excellent reason why they shouldn't be in my back yard............

cells

Sabrina2000 wrote: »

In North London it seems everywhere you look there is scafolding builders putting an extra floor somewhere, this is already before its got even easier.

What will it be like soon? There will be waiting lists to find builders able to fit people in?

I've lived in London for 30 years and never seen a house grow by 1 story. The work you are seeing may be a loft conversion or work to repair a roof or even an extension.

I would be amazed if a council anywhere gave permission for a house to be extended a floor where said house was near or joining other houses (basically that means everywhere in London)

The only way it would be remotely possible is if a good number of households applied to do it together but I aint see it never

---

Edit: Actually I recall a few now that I think of it but they have been v.rare and in those instances the additional floor was smaller than the floor below it probably to try and minimise the impact of an additional floor. So they do happen but certainly not "everywhere you look". And the main reason is it would in most places simply not be worth it

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

If the population of your area is growing anyway, they will put a stain on the traffic system, schools and doctors whether or not more houses are being built.
If the population isn't growing then you don't need more houses or infrastructure unless you wish to improve the overall housing standards.

Yep its so simple yet people are blind to it

10 people in one house need just as much infrastructure as 10 people in 5 homes and arguably maybe a bit more as overcrowding causes problems

The only two bits where that is not true is electricity and gas and both of those are getting more efficient so that growing the housing stock by 1% does not actually need more power stations or upgrades to gas distribution

cells

stator wrote: »

Typical Tory policy, faffing around the problem instead of dealing with it head on.
The private sector has never been able to build enough houses, and I don't think they want to.
The only way to build enough houses is to get councils to lead the way. Compulsory purchase the best suited land, develop the master plan and then sell off parcels of plots to anyone who wants to build them. Problem solved.

to my knowledge the UK has never had a state house builder so any building at any time has always been private

The state may have commissioned some building but it did not own or run a building company it just paid for it

And imo its record has been utterly !!!!, concentrating state commissioned homes into certain areas. eg Hackney was over 50% state commissioned homes !!!!!!


But to be honest I agree with you, compulsory purchase land. Zone it as development at X-density per acre, sell it on auction to the highest bidder.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

The population is growing by about 500,000 per annum, whether new houses are built or not.
It therefore makes no sense to argue against more house building just because the additional infrastructure doesn't precede it.
Of course, there is an excellent reason why they shouldn't be in my back yard............

I disagree without the additional infrastructure some places won't be able to function there is no need to build in advance just in conjunction.

To late for my back yard.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Yep its so simple yet people are blind to it

10 people in one house need just as much infrastructure as 10 people in 5 homes and arguably maybe a bit more as overcrowding causes problems

The only two bits where that is not true is electricity and gas and both of those are getting more efficient so that growing the housing stock by 1% does not actually need more power stations or upgrades to gas distribution

So you don't think increasing the size of a typical town or village doesn't increase the population.