General Election July 2024
Discussion
ben5575 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Mr Penguin said:
This is a great example of why planning has been a mess for years and won't be easy for Labour (or anyone) to fix. It maybe even the hardest part of their platform to deliver.
Or will be the easiest? Labour is popular in urban areas. So have a planning free for all on Rural areas, p
s off Tory voters who were never gonna vote Labour anyway and create an environment that generates Labour voters.Neighbouring council (No overall control) has completely failed to meet any sensible housing plan, even one of its own design.
Councillor in charge of housing (Green) has tried to ram through a large scheme with is on greenfield site which technically speaking is mostly but not totally within its own area. Plan rejected but approved on appeal by Sec of State. Practically speaking though if built all the pressure for public services will fall on another council area where demand already outstrips supply including pressure on roads and public transport. For example the location falls within the catchment area for our medical centre which is already at full stretch.
blueg33 said:
Interesting programme on tv last night with Tim Harper looking at growth and how it has been delivered in the past.
In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
What was the name of the show?In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
blueg33 said:
Interesting programme on tv last night with Tim Harper looking at growth and how it has been delivered in the past.
In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
Politicians always like to claim they are spending/borrowing more to ‘invest’. In practice, more often than not it’s more just for various vainglorious pet pork barrel projects/causes that some of the higher ups in the party have dreamt up….. tha main hope is that the latter might perhaps coincide a bit more with actual benefit for some of the really required stuff…..In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
FiF said:
Indeed 101.
Neighbouring council (No overall control) has completely failed to meet any sensible housing plan, even one of its own design.
Councillor in charge of housing (Green) has tried to ram through a large scheme with is on greenfield site which technically speaking is mostly but not totally within its own area. Plan rejected but approved on appeal by Sec of State. Practically speaking though if built all the pressure for public services will fall on another council area where demand already outstrips supply including pressure on roads and public transport. For example the location falls within the catchment area for our medical centre which is already at full stretch.
Sounds very familiar. Are you talking about MSN?Neighbouring council (No overall control) has completely failed to meet any sensible housing plan, even one of its own design.
Councillor in charge of housing (Green) has tried to ram through a large scheme with is on greenfield site which technically speaking is mostly but not totally within its own area. Plan rejected but approved on appeal by Sec of State. Practically speaking though if built all the pressure for public services will fall on another council area where demand already outstrips supply including pressure on roads and public transport. For example the location falls within the catchment area for our medical centre which is already at full stretch.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Sway said:
It just needs to happen.
The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
It's not just Lord March. There's strong opposition to going North. And strong opposition to going South. In each case for very good reasons.The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
If average wages are lower then great! The locals don't want to be richer in ££££s we want the South Downs left undisturbed and we want the Coastal plane to be left alone. If I have to have a slightly worse car and in exchange I get to run over fields from my house I'll 100pc take that.
BikeBikeBIke said:
As others say there's no shortage of land to develop so we can totally protect this bit, and build infrastructure elsewhere.
Confirmed. NIMBY.We have to relax the planning laws (even slightly) if we're to get infrastructure upgraded. And I say this being surrounded on three sides of my house by green belt.
captain_cynic said:
Solocle said:
The width of the London greenbelt is to try and minimise hop, where you end up with satellite development beyond the greenbelt.
It's debatable how successful that policy is, given the presence of substantial commuter towns like Reading.
That gaping hellmouth that is Reading It's debatable how successful that policy is, given the presence of substantial commuter towns like Reading.
The problem is Reading is struggling to expand to with new houses being miles from the station and still stupidly overpriced.
You need to get further out for affordable housing. Just don't go too far south or you'll get the proximity to the coast driving up prices too.
Lots of house building in central Berkshire, all in the wrong places. And without any expansion to the railway infrastructure to serve those developments. I think we need Berkshire County Council back.
borcy said:
blueg33 said:
Interesting programme on tv last night with Tim Harper looking at growth and how it has been delivered in the past.
In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
What was the name of the show?In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
Sorry it was Tim Harford - i'm getting old and forgot his name! It was Channel 4
Skint: The Truth About Britain’s Broken Economy
Puzzles said:
blueg33 said:
Ill build them.
How many per year can you or the uk realistically build in the next 5 years?Obv it takes time to scale up but is there going to be an issue getting the labour and skills to build 300k odd houses a year?
The PLC's are also moving more towards factory production with Vistry, Bellway, Persimmon and Barratt all investing.
We can ramp up to 300k houses quite easily the issue remains planning and land availability. Factories need smooth production, land availability and the randomness of planning means that the production requirement is lumpy.
Its very inefficient to have peaks and troughs in manufacturing if we can smooth it then costs will fall and production will increase, jobs will also be more secure.
blueg33 said:
My little factory can do 3000 pa, but I can set up new factories in 6 months. Factory built needs fewer specialist skills and is ultimately quicker. Labour can be a challenge but if the factory is in a populous area then generally there isnt a problem. I need circa 40 people to build 1000 houses a year and 80 or so to build 3000 from one factory.
The PLC's are also moving more towards factory production with Vistry, Bellway, Persimmon and Barratt all investing.
We can ramp up to 300k houses quite easily the issue remains planning and land availability. Factories need smooth production, land availability and the randomness of planning means that the production requirement is lumpy.
Its very inefficient to have peaks and troughs in manufacturing if we can smooth it then costs will fall and production will increase, jobs will also be more secure.
Could you PM me your details, please?The PLC's are also moving more towards factory production with Vistry, Bellway, Persimmon and Barratt all investing.
We can ramp up to 300k houses quite easily the issue remains planning and land availability. Factories need smooth production, land availability and the randomness of planning means that the production requirement is lumpy.
Its very inefficient to have peaks and troughs in manufacturing if we can smooth it then costs will fall and production will increase, jobs will also be more secure.
oyster said:
Confirmed. NIMBY.
We have to relax the planning laws (even slightly) if we're to get infrastructure upgraded. And I say this being surrounded on three sides of my house by green belt.
If we're under populated and there's plenty of land the why is being a Nimby a problem?We have to relax the planning laws (even slightly) if we're to get infrastructure upgraded. And I say this being surrounded on three sides of my house by green belt.
Give the benefits of development to the places that want to be developed.
Yertis said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Or will be the easiest? Labour is popular in urban areas. So have a planning free for all on Rural areas, ps off Tory voters who were never gonna vote Labour anyway and create an environment that generates Labour voters.
That's pretty much Labour's attitude to everything see also "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity"s off Tory voters who were never gonna vote Labour anyway and create an environment that generates Labour voters.New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
blueg33 said:
It really isn't.
New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
Alternative idea: New towns - like the Garden Cities or the likes of Harlow after WW2 (though not made of brutalist concrete)?New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
vaud said:
blueg33 said:
It really isn't.
New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
Alternative idea: New towns - like the Garden Cities or the likes of Harlow after WW2 (though not made of brutalist concrete)?New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
I totally agree, we can create good places but we have to lead with infrastructure. The current UK policy is to make the builders pay for infrastructure and that means it always lags the housing etc development. The government needs to put the infrastructure in place and them people will come. Homes England is supposed to do that, but frankly they are not great at it, to slow, too indecisive plus too caught up in other things like social housing grants.The old Commission for New Towns was pretty good at it.
FiF said:
Neighbouring council (No overall control) has completely failed to meet any sensible housing plan, even one of its own design.
Councillor in charge of housing (Green) has tried to ram through a large scheme with is on greenfield site which technically speaking is mostly but not totally within its own area. Plan rejected but approved on appeal by Sec of State. Practically speaking though if built all the pressure for public services will fall on another council area where demand already outstrips supply including pressure on roads and public transport. For example the location falls within the catchment area for our medical centre which is already at full stretch.
Pretty similar in this area (and from your description of councillors a different area) where the next door council are planning to meet their housing plan requirements by approving a new town at the very edge of their area, miles away from any of their existing towns, but slap bang next to a town in the adjoining county.Councillor in charge of housing (Green) has tried to ram through a large scheme with is on greenfield site which technically speaking is mostly but not totally within its own area. Plan rejected but approved on appeal by Sec of State. Practically speaking though if built all the pressure for public services will fall on another council area where demand already outstrips supply including pressure on roads and public transport. For example the location falls within the catchment area for our medical centre which is already at full stretch.
Win / Win / Win for them as complaints only from a trivial number of their voters, they meet their housing targets, and they get all the financial benefits, and meanwhile the issues for all the infrastructure and support falls on the neighbouring county that gets none of the benefits.
vaud said:
blueg33 said:
It really isn't.
New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
Alternative idea: New towns - like the Garden Cities or the likes of Harlow after WW2 (though not made of brutalist concrete)?New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
CivicDuties said:
vaud said:
blueg33 said:
It really isn't.
New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
Alternative idea: New towns - like the Garden Cities or the likes of Harlow after WW2 (though not made of brutalist concrete)?New housing is best around existing settlements not in rural areas as the infrastructure and sustainability doesn't stack up out in the sticks
With 40 odd years of the worst boom and bust in construction - as an industry, it has hit most recessions earliest, hardest and normally also last out - there's simply no longer the capacity to even build at 1970's rates of 350k homes per year.
Future governments are going to need to do a better job of smoothing the curve, in order to encourage the growth and investment required.
The problem with building more houses isn't the housebuilders it's the restrictions placed by the infrastructure and authorities..
Surface water storage, foul drainage capacity, electricity supply, and in many cases the local authorities Section 278 requirements for highway improvements (usually required as the existing infrastructure is already inadequate).
Surface water storage, foul drainage capacity, electricity supply, and in many cases the local authorities Section 278 requirements for highway improvements (usually required as the existing infrastructure is already inadequate).
Skyedriver said:
The problem with building more houses isn't the housebuilders it's the restrictions placed by the infrastructure and authorities..
Surface water storage, foul drainage capacity, electricity supply, and in many cases the local authorities Section 278 requirements for highway improvements (usually required as the existing infrastructure is already inadequate).
Whilst planning is ridiculously bad, impacting all areas of construction and making road and infrastructure costs higher than just about anywhere else in Europe, the issue is definitely numbers:Surface water storage, foul drainage capacity, electricity supply, and in many cases the local authorities Section 278 requirements for highway improvements (usually required as the existing infrastructure is already inadequate).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff