It's getting tough out there. Feeling the pinch?

Woolsery

EssexHebridean said:

littlemoney said:

ladyholly said:

pelirocco said:

Affordable  homes are what is needed ,we need to go back to Council housing with Affordable rents ,and if they sell them build another with the money raised

I agree the worst thing any government has done is to prevent councils from using the money from the sale of council housing from being used to build new homes for rent.

All developers seem to want to build is luxury homes but what the country needs is homes to rent for ordinary people. When will government of all colours realise that not everyone can or wants to buy their own home?

The biggest profit is from luxury homes so that is what's built. Until they can't sell luxury homes they will carry on building them. The current philosophy today is  money and profit are king, people don't matter.

This isn't entirely true though is it - any development beyond 10 homes these days has to include a provision for social housing. That's been the case for years - no social housing = no planning permission. 

Planning often isn't enough. It's not just the social housing which isn't being built where I am, but also 34 other homes, including the social element. The site remains a field because there has to be a contribution to upgrading the sewage works; entirely reasonable.

But it's the effects of Covid that have most affected things here. Once a rural backwater with modest prices, WFH changed all that in the space of a year.

ladyholly

A family member has a piece of land which a developer wants to buy but as it is designated for agriculture they are having to go through hoops to get the supposed nitrates sorted, offset or whatever.
Sensible you might think but this land has never had artificial fertilizers on (it has been in the family for well over 100 years) and has not been used in the last 40years at all except for grazing a donkey who died over 20 years ago. Even more to the point they have been trying to sort this for over 5 years and as far as we can see are no further on. How many parcels of land are there like this?

bupster

The biggest profit is from luxury homes so that is what's built. Until they can't sell luxury homes they will carry on building them. The current philosophy today is  money and profit are king, people don't matter.

This isn't entirely true though is it - any development beyond 10 homes these days has to include a provision for social housing. That's been the case for years - no social housing = no planning permission. 

^^ I was just coming to post what EH has said. New developments around here typically have 35% constructed as social housing.

Speaking as a former local councillor, developers are extremely good (especially with smaller developments) at weaselling out of this at the last minute, and we as the planning authority had very little in the way of comeback. 

newlywed

EssexHebridean said:

littlemoney said:

ladyholly said:

pelirocco said:

Affordable  homes are what is needed ,we need to go back to Council housing with Affordable rents ,and if they sell them build another with the money raised

I agree the worst thing any government has done is to prevent councils from using the money from the sale of council housing from being used to build new homes for rent.

All developers seem to want to build is luxury homes but what the country needs is homes to rent for ordinary people. When will government of all colours realise that not everyone can or wants to buy their own home?

The biggest profit is from luxury homes so that is what's built. Until they can't sell luxury homes they will carry on building them. The current philosophy today is  money and profit are king, people don't matter.

This isn't entirely true though is it - any development beyond 10 homes these days has to include a provision for social housing. That's been the case for years - no social housing = no planning permission. 

Developers in our city seem to manage to bung the council a fee and then not include any social housing.  Or propose another of their sites that will be tiny flats and most of those be given to social housing instead of the nicer development.

euronorris

bupster said:

The biggest profit is from luxury homes so that is what's built. Until they can't sell luxury homes they will carry on building them. The current philosophy today is  money and profit are king, people don't matter.

This isn't entirely true though is it - any development beyond 10 homes these days has to include a provision for social housing. That's been the case for years - no social housing = no planning permission. 

^^ I was just coming to post what EH has said. New developments around here typically have 35% constructed as social housing.

Speaking as a former local councillor, developers are extremely good (especially with smaller developments) at weaselling out of this at the last minute, and we as the planning authority had very little in the way of comeback. 

They like to weasel out of everything. They had to be cajoled and threatened into following through with one of the promised parks on our estates. What did they then do? Installed one (yes  just one) bouncy toy and added a fence around the border. That's it.

And, 15/20 years on from building the properties and the council still won't adopt ownership, or whatever, of the roads as the developers failed to uphold their part on many things. This leads to general maintenance not happening as council blames developers, developers blame council, goes back and forth and nothing ever happens.

Woolsery

ladyholly said:

A family member has a piece of land which a developer wants to buy but as it is designated for agriculture they are having to go through hoops to get the supposed nitrates sorted, offset or whatever.
Sensible you might think but this land has never had artificial fertilizers on (it has been in the family for well over 100 years) and has not been used in the last 40years at all except for grazing a donkey who died over 20 years ago. Even more to the point they have been trying to sort this for over 5 years and as far as we can see are no further on. How many parcels of land are there like this?

 It's likely the nitates are low and the planners want to offset the loss of this unsullied land in some way. However, as I said before, the people who control high finance are not intending future development to be so easy in the countryside, whether it's here, in France, or Timbuktu. Their vision has been laid out clearly and it revolves around achieving Carbon zero, with people mostly in cities within 15 minutes walking distance of the main services they'll require. It's no good at all if they're like me and need a car to reach anything resembling a service!

I'm in favour of looking after our wildflower meadows, having just spent more than 10 years creating one with a sustainable agricultural output, but you can bet I'm pressing on in haste with plans to convert a redundant barn before it's too late. That's my pension!

marycanary

bupster said:

The biggest profit is from luxury homes so that is what's built. Until they can't sell luxury homes they will carry on building them. The current philosophy today is  money and profit are king, people don't matter.

This isn't entirely true though is it - any development beyond 10 homes these days has to include a provision for social housing. That's been the case for years - no social housing = no planning permission. 

^^ I was just coming to post what EH has said. New developments around here typically have 35% constructed as social housing.

Speaking as a former local councillor, developers are extremely good (especially with smaller developments) at weaselling out of this at the last minute, and we as the planning authority had very little in the way of comeback. 

I agree too many councils don't stand up to developers and cave in at the first mention of a judicial review instead of insisting on a robust viability assessment. On the other hand, cuts in funding have left councils without the capacity to do all the things they would like.

Spendless

-taff said:

Onebrokelady said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

I agree OneBrokeLady.  I used to watch news morning and evening but don’t now. I do watch some normal telly, but it’s more often QI on Dave, or something interesting on PBS/history/yesterday channels.  

I would ring them and say “please give my licence money back, I promise I don’t watch BBC or listen to BBC radio, or have the news app on my phone anymore - but I don’t think I’d get very far ha haa! I mean, how would they check?! 

I'm am of the generation that used to watch the adverts on the telly about getting caught without a license so I'm terrified of doing something wrong and getting a huge fine which I wouldn't be able to afford to pay, they have their ways of checking people. I've never had the news app on my phone mainly because it's too small to see properly 😀

They have NO way of checking apart from to come to your house,ask you if you watch tv, ask you to let them in to check and then you say, I don't, and no you can't. Which has never happened to us in seven years of living here. Then they will send you letters for six months, each more threatening than the last, then their computers will click over and start addressing letter to the 'occupier' or the 'legal owner' and the letters will go on a loop forever.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

Agreed. When my DS started Uni and had to have a TV licence, he didn't because he didn't watch. All addresses within his halls were sent letters as above. At one point the students discussed making a college with them to display in the kitchen. DS was actually wanting someone to turn up just so he could argue with them about it  no one ever came! 

I'm still catching up, but reading car vs public transport with interest because I've been offered a job 3 days a week, eventually with some WFH options just not whilst in training and for the first time in my life it doesn't come with free parking and since it's in the town centre no free parking nearby either. Add in some roadworks near me and I'm having to think of whether I do train, bus, or drive or a combination of all till I find my feet. 

ladyholly

Woolsery said:

ladyholly said:

A family member has a piece of land which a developer wants to buy but as it is designated for agriculture they are having to go through hoops to get the supposed nitrates sorted, offset or whatever.
Sensible you might think but this land has never had artificial fertilizers on (it has been in the family for well over 100 years) and has not been used in the last 40years at all except for grazing a donkey who died over 20 years ago. Even more to the point they have been trying to sort this for over 5 years and as far as we can see are no further on. How many parcels of land are there like this?

 It's likely the nitates are low and the planners want to offset the loss of this unsullied land in some way. However, as I said before, the people who control high finance are not intending future development to be so easy in the countryside, whether it's here, in France, or Timbuktu. Their vision has been laid out clearly and it revolves around achieving Carbon zero, with people mostly in cities within 15 minutes walking distance of the main services they'll require. It's no good at all if they're like me and need a car to reach anything resembling a service!

I'm in favour of looking after our wildflower meadows, having just spent more than 10 years creating one with a sustainable agricultural output, but you can bet I'm pressing on in haste with plans to convert a redundant barn before it's too late. That's my pension!

.its actually not in the countryside (it was once) and is surrounded by other development going on. This is within striking distance of both Portsmouth and Southampton.  I don't know who is holding it up but from what I can gather the developer has the finance in place and is very keen to go.
I am all in favour of rewilding when done properly. Our council,not the same as relatives, has just planted loads of trees too close together and has stopped cutting the grass around them and all round the edge of the field. The trees are disappearing into the grass and the only interesting wildlife is ticks. This is a field that is used by children and young people people of all ages and dog walkers. I am waiting to hear of the first child with lyme disease. 

Spendless

On the subject of food budgets, I found DD becoming Vegetarian MORE expensive! Let me explain, when she came home from school one day aged 13 saying she was now vegetarian - she was a meat eater when she'd set off, it was a few days before payday, I'd lost my job (yes again!) a few months before and we had little in. Suddenly the large pepperoni pizza we had in for us to share wasn't sufficient because we also needed a smaller vegetarian one and going forward 2 x medium pizzas, (2 veggie, 2 not), cost more than when it was when one large suited everyone. Add in that DD has never been a fan of the veg chilli/curry/stew etc and prefers meat substitute stuff. Has changed her mind on numerous occasions about which veggie sausage she prefers and that DH thinks all meals should contain some meat on it and you can see why. I have had some success with using lentils and the veg she does like to make bolognaise and then I'll eat it too as I can't abide most  meat substitutes