Planning changes to encourage new builds

CLAPTON

Sapphire wrote: »

In my view:

1. Depending on the area, the infrastructure generally (hospitals, transport and so on) definitely needs to improve A LOT before much more living accommodation is built – many areas are now just full up and incredibly crowded. The NHS is certainly groaning at the seams, and transport in many areas (barring, perhaps, places on the Crossrail line) is terrible, especially during the rush hour.

2. Enough is already being built, with all the horrendous vast, ugly, light-killing buildings (commonly sold as 'luxury apartments') springing up throughout London. It's just that it's being built for investment purposes, not for housing the indigenous population. (In passing, at this rate no visitors will want to come to visit such an ugly city, which is rapidly losing its historic character and quirkiness.) People seem to have forgotten what a bad effect the similar cheaply built huge buildings erected in the Sixties had on people stuffed into them, and how they went to seed – I thought it was going to be 'never again' with such architecture.

3. I feel the government is constantly promoting this idea of never-ending building because Britain has few other sources of income. Property appears to be be the only thing the government is interested in selling to all and sundry mainly abroad, rather than within the country (except to already wealthy speculators, probably including quite a few MPs).

4. Property should be for living in, like it used to be, not used as a financial instrument in speculation. The inflation in property prices with disproportionately little progress in other parts of the economy is really dangerous for financial stability (I'm sure the vested interests are aware of this, but are just acting in the short term to help themselves).

so in summary, your view of the 500,000 annual increase in population, is to do nothing?

Mistermeaner

michaels wrote: »

I think everyone who comments should reveal how many live in their property and how many bedrooms they have. It would appear that those with above average bedrooms to people will be the ones saying 'no we have plenty of house already'....

Similarly anyone who's house was built on land that was originally 'green' - ie undeveloped should not complain about any other development of undeveloped land.

Me; 2 bed 1900's just out of town centre semi. Roadside parking.

Just me and the boy so I would say we're optimised

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

where do the people come from?

and no, increasing the amount of space people have, doesn't increase the population.

People move around you know the populations of lots of towns 20 to 40 miles from London have increased considerably over the 10 to 20 years.

Mistermeaner

ggb1979 wrote: »

Me; 2 bed 1900's just out of town centre semi. Roadside parking.

Just me and the boy so I would say we're optimised

Ps. Actively searching for a suitable 2nd adult to join us. Due to lack of bedrooms will have to share.

Tall dark handsome gsoh etc

Just saying

Mummyisbeauty

michaels wrote: »

I think everyone who comments should reveal how many live in their property and how many bedrooms they have. It would appear that those with above average bedrooms to people will be the ones saying 'no we have plenty of house already'....

Similarly anyone who's house was built on land that was originally 'green' - ie undeveloped should not complain about any other development of undeveloped land.

We (myself, hubby and a toddler) live in a small three bed ex council terraced house in Birmingham. My issue with houses is that they are building on any green land here instead of using brownfield sites.
They have also spent the last decade knocking primary schools down yet building houses both on those sites and others and now there aren't enough primary places for the next few years onwards.
Even worse is that they knew this was coming as there was a baby boom 2010 onwards uk wide and there wasn't enough midwifes then.

Sapphire

However, if a place is full up, and some places in London certainly are, don't settle more people in it. It would ultimately create far more problems than it would solve. There is a finite number of people that can be settled in overly crowded areas – and London is incredibly crowded and polluted, even compared with just a few years ago.

There's probably still more derelict land and places that could be built upon around the Thames Estuary, and what happened to the idea of building 'new towns' in Kent, which I seem to remember Osborne talking about?

Also, stop building so-called 'luxury apartments' and selling off most of what is being built in London to foreign investors (many of whom don't even live in the places they own), and to speculators in this country, none of whom give a hoot about the destruction of heritage, or 'clean air', or infrastructure, in favour of their own vested interests. Without these elements, there would be more than enough affordable property to go around for the indigenous population.

And encourage development in places that actually need it, like the big cities of the north, which could house a vast number of additional people.

If the aim is to settle a 500,000 increase in population, which you postulate, in London this is far too much for the infrastructure alone to cope with, let alone housing. Perhaps try and reduce this increase, rather than 'do nothing'? :cool:

If there is much more building in London, it will soon come to resemble Beijing (which, however, was not built on top of an existing historic city). It's already beginning to look like that in some places, for example Battersea, which looks utterly vile, and in some of the new developments around Canary Wharf (which itself is fine as a working place, but not as somewhere to live, which appears to be what is being proposed).

CLAPTON wrote: »

so in summary, your view of the 500,000 annual increase in population, is to do nothing?

Masomnia

ggb1979 wrote: »

Ps. Actively searching for a suitable 2nd adult to join us. Due to lack of bedrooms will have to share.

Tall dark handsome gsoh etc

Just saying

You rang?...

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

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

The answer is it can and it might not*

There was a period of about 2-3 decades where London population shrank and during that time an additional > 500,000 homes were built in London. So London got physically bigger (if youocount the size of London as the last house in the edge) yet its population shrank

likewise there was a period when the whole UK population shrank ober a period of some 3 years. During that time soke 1 million more homea were build. So a million more homes and no additional people.


the conclusion is easy. Population drives housing need, houses dont drive population.

of course that is on a national or regional scale. On a local scale ita somewhat different. Eg if Hackney in London somehow built 200k homes over the next year even if London population growth during the same time was zero you woupd find you need more infrastructure in Hackney and less elsewhere in London.


Anywho. Infrastructure generally gets more productive so there is little need to add to much of it. Only transport is a problem but its not an unsolvable problem nor should it be a limit to say no to development in location x.

cells

ggb1979 wrote: »

Get the point re population growth being independent of house building. However when new homes are constructed in a given area this moves people from potentially already overcrowded areas into less crowded areas - fine from a bedroom point of view but the infrastructure struggles.

Arguably of course but London's infrastructure copes with the population even though the housing is overcrowded.

Nimby I know but building new homes in my area is increasing the population when it otherwise wouldn't but the infrastructure is not being improved.

I'm in favour of house building, just saying that infrastructure improvements are needed too - this can often be more difficult in brownfield sites that are already boxed in vs building in Greenfield where infrastructure can be better planned

What infrastructure do you think is needed in your area due to population migration, that is lacking now. Also why should new house be responsible or provide that infrastructure.

for example why is a new house with its occupants less entitled to use infrastructure x than an existing house and its tenants. There seems little logic to an idea of first come first serve to homes.

and finally infrastructure tends to lag demand this is quite natural. The alternative are bridges to nowehere and uear/decades of under utilisation of pre built infrastructure.

cells

michaels wrote: »

I think everyone who comments should reveal how many live in their property and how many bedrooms they have. It would appear that those with above average bedrooms to people will be the ones saying 'no we have plenty of house already'....

Similarly anyone who's house was built on land that was originally 'green' - ie undeveloped should not complain about any other development of undeveloped land.

In my experience there is little to no correlation.

I've known renters living 6 to a house against 'concreting over the countryside' and landlords with scores of homes who agree and would not object to more building (as it would be shameful for someone who has many to say no to those who have none)

I think generally those who dont thunk at all or very little aboit the issue just go with the propaganda about saving the countryside and those in the industry one way or another or have spent time to understand it reasonably see that tjere is a true shortage of homes in the UK