Planning changes to encourage new builds

Mistermeaner

mwpt wrote: »

Infrastructure grows once their is demand. Hence the population, houses, will be built first.

Some yes but not all. Would you wait until your sewers back up and your lights flicker before doing something about it?

Some basic infrastructure like roads, schools etc should be dealt with at the time of house building IMO

cells

Infrastructure if it is needed should be funded though general taxation

A lack of adequate infrastructure if it exists, the blame should be on the government/council not on the new development of homes down the road.

CLAPTON

is there any evidence that new building causes significant infrastructure problems, compared to the infrastructure problems caused by the annul increase in population of about 500,000?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Infrastructure if it is needed should be funded though general taxation

A lack of adequate infrastructure if it exists, the blame should be on the government/council not on the new development of homes down the road.

I don't see why if they are building in an area where the roads are not good enough they should contribute to better roads for access.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

e any evidence that new building causes significant infrastructure problems, compared to the infrastructure problems caused by the annul increase in population of about 500,000?

It depends on how that population growth is spread. The idea is that a big new development in location x spreads the population growth there (internal migration)

However it should be no reason to be against development you should instead be rightly !!!!ed off at the state for failing to provide its monopoly services on time and at the needed locations

if schools were for profit. If hospitals were for profit. If roads were for profit. The developers would be fighting each other to build them here there and everywhere. New developments don't ever lack shops for instance. But since roads schools and hospitals are by in large a state monopoly its upto the state to make sure provision and access is acceptable

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't see why if they are building in an area where the roads are not gdidn'tnough they should contribute to better roads for access.

If the country needs a new power station I propose that new borns should be sent an invoice as we didn't need the power station last year

michaels

Doesn't the infrastructure arguement suggest it would be wise to choose a site on a railway line less than an hour from London and build a large town / small city and all the required infrastructure. The value of the 'planning gain' would no doubt be more than enough to pay for the required infrastructure.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't see why if they are building in an area where the roads are not good enough they should contribute to better roads for access.

The thing is, the existing roads, they were not built by a levy on existing homes when they were built say 50 years ago. The existing roads were built by general taxation.

so why should homeowners in existing homes benefit from this general taxation gift while a homeowner in a new home need to effectively pay for and build his own road.

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

Doesn't the infrastructure arguement suggest it would be wise to choose a site on a railway line less than an hour from London and build a large town / small city and all the required infrastructure. The value of the 'planning gain' would no doubt be more than enough to pay for the required infrastructure.

Haven't I see a plan for something in the past I admit it seems to have gone quite now.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

The thing is, the existing roads, they were not built by a levy on existing homes when they were built say 50 years ago. The existing roads were built by general taxation.

so why should homeowners in existing homes benefit from this general taxation gift while a homeowner in a new home need to effectively pay for and build his own road.

You are advocating building on green fields the planning permission for that would increase the value of that land considerably I see no reason why some of the increase cannot be used to improve infrastructure.