Log cabins?

Geenie

cells wrote: »

take a look at the price to rent a modest home in this country, or to buy a modest home. it is 50% or more of take home pay.

look at other european or asian countries, the amount of take home pay spent on housing your family is far less.

this means one thing and one thing only, we do not have enough homes. now we have the skills to build the homes, we have the capital, we have the will. what we do not have is an unbiased fair system to which we can build homes.

the current system keeps the rich landlords v.rich. and everyone else in relative poverty.


now i repete, why should a planner, or anyone else in goverment be able to stop you from building a home for yourself and your family?

now if you will excuse me, i need to get up in the morning to pay the dam rent which thanks to planners and stupid goverment is a v.high % of my take home pay!

Sleep tight Cells...........but you still haven't explained your post in my quote and reference to "gypos" and building more homes?!!


I will expect a better explanation tomorrow after a good nights sleep on your part young scientist.....and the reason for "gypos" coming into the equation. It makes no sense and is quite frankly offensive and bigoted as being a reason for the current housing crisis.

cells

Geenie wrote: »

Sleep tight Cells...........but you still haven't explained your post in my quote and reference to "gypos" and building more homes?!!


I will expect a better explanation tomorrow after a good nights sleep on your part young scientist.....and the reason for "gypos" coming into the equation. It makes no sense and is quite frankly offensive and bigoted as being a reason for the current housing crisis.

The “planner” so expressively said he tries his best to get rid of “gypos”.
And I put it that, some gypos and or anyone else who chooses to live in caravans/mobile homes do so because of high rents/prices

So that stupid planner, is contributing to the problem he so claims to be doing his best to avoid. I know a few people who live in mobile homes because they can not afford to rent or buy. What state are we in as a country if we can not provide shelter for our population at the costs we can afford!

2000 years ago we could easily provide shelter for ourselves, yet during this time with productivity increases and new technology and understanding one can not provide for himself or his family because of stupid planners and stupid planning laws.


So I repeat, what right does a planner or even government have to deny its citizens the right to shelter! One should be able to build anywhere so long as they own the land!

planning_officer

cells wrote: »

The “planner” so expressively said he tries his best to get rid of “gypos”.
And I put it that, some gypos and or anyone else who chooses to live in caravans/mobile homes do so because of high rents/prices

So that stupid planner, is contributing to the problem he so claims to be doing his best to avoid. I know a few people who live in mobile homes because they can not afford to rent or buy. What state are we in as a country if we can not provide shelter for our population at the costs we can afford!

2000 years ago we could easily provide shelter for ourselves, yet during this time with productivity increases and new technology and understanding one can not provide for himself or his family because of stupid planners and stupid planning laws.


So I repeat, what right does a planner or even government have to deny its citizens the right to shelter! One should be able to build anywhere so long as they own the land!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Dear oh dear, I won't stoop to your level by offering insults in return - it's all too easy to blame planners and the planning system for a housing shortage when you clearly don't understand the workings of the housing market.

Firstly, it's central government that sets out the housing figures, which are translated into numbers of dwellings per region, which are then in turn 'allocated' to each district/unitiary authority for delivery. The local LPA has no control whatsoever over housing numbers - they are literally given the number of houses each year to build. So if enough aren't being built, blame the government, not local planners!! I can only speak for my authority, and we're granting permission for far more houses than our targets set out, however I appreciate it's not the same everywhere.

However, let's look at the actual facts and where much of the blame lies - the Barker report in 2004 (the main report which 'started' the current 'housing crisis' debate) states that 70,000 new homes are needed every year in order to reduce house prices (and obviously provide more homes). How many plots of land are there currently across the country, with extant planning permission to build? The answer is 225,000. I'm sorry to shatter your illusion that planners are to blame, but the 10 major housebuilders in this country are just sitting on these plots, having had planning permission granted for new houses, in order that they can create huge landbanks for future development - they just keep renewing the permissions every 3 years so they constantly have lots of land available in case of recession and harder times, so they always have land to build on. Taylor Wimpey has 57,063 plots alone. In total, the 10 main housebuilders own nearly 14,000 acres, all with extant planning permission for new houses, yet they build on them very very slowly and in some cases, not at all.

Whilst the government is aware of this huge problem, it's clearly nothing to do with the planning system - planning permission is being granted for these new dwellings, but they're not getting built!!

There's also one other point I want to make - all LPAs are now required to prepare a housing land assessment, i.e. to identify the source for housing sites within their areas for the next 15 years. The planning system is doing it's bit to allocate these sites and genuinely find locations for more houses, but much of the blame lies elsewhere!

But, cello, to hark on about people should be able to build what they want, where they want, just because they own the land, is just utter nonsense and a complete non-starter. Yep, let's have complete anarchy - houses everywhere, lots more commuting, car travel, pollution, destruction of landscape, unsustainable poorly planned and piecemeal communities - no thanks...

harryhound

Not to mention the extra costs of all those free/subsidised at the point of use services, where the costs are spread over the established population: Schooling, Sewage, Roads, Water. Healthcare, Social services, Mail delivery, Garbage removal.
The inconvenient truth is that agriculture no longer needs 70 hour weeks worked by millions of illiterate workers, those jobs have been automated out of existence. There is no wage at which such people can work and compete with a 100K all singing all dancing satellite controlled piece of farm machinery.
As you can see, the other side of the coin is that it costs an investment of thousands upon thousands of pounds just to provide one extra job in the modern world and perhaps thousands and thousands of pounds in education to produce a worker to work in this complex technical world. There are millions upon millions of illiterate people in this world that are economically surplus to requirements, most of them surviving on hand outs from the cost effective workers and investors. It is a global problem and the UK is already doing far more than its fair share to provide for these unfortunate (or indolent) people.
I don't know what the solution is for the world, but I do know that an open door, live where you want, policy is not the solution.