Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
Especially when anyone with a vested interest in preventing growth (which is many people) can engage in years of lawfare by tying up projects in judicial reviews and objections even if others don't object or accept the money.
Solve the real problem, don't try to by-pass it. We need to abolish planning permission, not try to bribe people into not objecting.
Shit-tonne, please, if it's metric. Imperial or US short is shitton.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
It is a slippery slope.
If everyone expects compensation for anything that happens nearby, even national infrastructure, then we'll have a new army of compo-nimbys, stopping all developments unless they get paid.
If it is national infrastructure and required, then build it.
Talking to a German this evening. Slightly depressing. “Is it true you British are really scared of war with Putin?” “Think of all the constructive things you could spend money on rather than armaments”.
Took all my self control not to say “well, we’ve been here before”.
It need not be a zero sum game. Money spent on armaments and ‘warfighters’ in the U.K. will boost the economy.
I think that's a great idea. Those that host the energy infrastructure that benefits all of us should be rewarded, particularly if it sees the value of their property decrease.
Land Value Taxation would do away with this kind of complicated cherry-picking. If pylons reduce the value of your property, then your tax would fall.
That logic doesn't work. Let's say that I'm paying property tax at 1% pa, and my house was worth £500k, so I was paying £5k/year in tax. However, someone builds a motorway past my front door, so now my house is only worth £250k. Good news is that my tax is now only £2.5k/pa. Bad news is that my £2.5k pa saving will take 100 years to break even. I'm not sure that leaves me a happy bunny!
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
WASHINGTON—Warning that Americans should brace themselves for an economic “period of transition,” President Donald Trump told reporters Monday that a recession would be an unfortunate but necessary step on the way to all-out depression. “Look, what we’re doing is very big and will cause some pain, but that pain is necessary to cause total economic collapse,” Trump said during a press conference,
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
Especially when anyone with a vested interest in preventing growth (which is many people) can engage in years of lawfare by tying up projects in judicial reviews and objections even if others don't object or accept the money.
Solve the real problem, don't try to by-pass it. We need to abolish planning permission, not try to bribe people into not objecting.
Shitton is a word like ballache. Pronounced differently in my mind to how people would wish it pronounced.
(The former like a humdrum village/town in Bedfordshire; the latter like a type of Lamborghini.)
As the late great Paul Ritter would say "Shitton it!"
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
A lot of people seem to think that we can’t fire any nuclear missiles without US permission so he could “announce” that we have developed a fully independent nuclear deterrent.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
Three House Republicans. Four GOP senators. That’s what it might take to stop or impede Trump’s sellout of Ukraine. They could vow not to support Trump’s agenda, and to vote with the Democrats if necessary, as long as the betrayal of Ukraine continues. They could start with the government funding bill that must pass by the end of this week.
But no, Hill Republicans are still bending the knee to Trump.
Three House Republicans. Four GOP senators. That’s what it might take to stop or impede Trump’s sellout of Ukraine. They could vow not to support Trump’s agenda, and to vote with the Democrats if necessary, as long as the betrayal of Ukraine continues. They could start with the government funding bill that must pass by the end of this week.
But no, Hill Republicans are still bending the knee to Trump.
Sir Keir is really going all in on cutting welfare?
Labour know there is widespread abuse. Working people know it. Labour voters know it. Labour only claim there isn't when the tories are in power. So now, à la Nixon in China, Starmer can go there.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
Especially when anyone with a vested interest in preventing growth (which is many people) can engage in years of lawfare by tying up projects in judicial reviews and objections even if others don't object or accept the money.
Solve the real problem, don't try to by-pass it. We need to abolish planning permission, not try to bribe people into not objecting.
Shit-tonne, please, if it's metric. Imperial or US short is shitton.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
There's also been some reports today that the British are "training" Zelensky in how to handle Trump, which would make sense. No wonder the Russians would be furious, and ranting about Britain, like this morning's info, if so.
Musk: There was a massive cyber attack to try and bring down X with ip addresses originating in the Ukraine area.
Utter bollox but so obvious we could see it coming when X went down this morning..
Not even hiding it now. This is a Putin supporting US government. A coup has taken place. No debate now.
Treason of the highest order.
Will America wake up in time?
What coup? Trump loves Putin and has always been open about it. Trump won the election. How is that a coup?
Agreed, it was pretty clear what would happen - the only question was about the speed of it, which has caught many by surprise - though some people tried to fool themselves, and others, that once again Trump didn't mean what his words clearly implied.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Talking to a German this evening. Slightly depressing. “Is it true you British are really scared of war with Putin?” “Think of all the constructive things you could spend money on rather than armaments”.
Took all my self control not to say “well, we’ve been here before”.
Just tell them that Chamberlin wanted to introduce Universal Health Insurance. Not buy Spitfires and Hurricanes.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
I don’t mean this unkindly but what gives you the right? It’s easy to object when you already have a home.
As I said to many others here, I am happy to admit that I am an extremist or whatever on planning but there should be some acknowledgement that the system we currently have is extremist the other way.
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
"The value of investments can go down as well as up".
Worrying about the value of people's savings is not valid reason to artificially prop up a share price. Indeed, diversification is supposed to mitigate the risk that a CEO randomly turns into a Nazi, so the index tracker is going its job in that respect.
It does not help however that the same individual has untrammelled power over the US government... but my European defence stocks are doing some good work.
How was Tesla artifically propped up ?
I bought BAE stock when Russia invaded Ukraine, done well.
You're making a fuss about Tesla's share price crashing and hurting Tesla investors. Tough shit, it's a free market and people can invest their money however they feel fit.
One of my favourite business quotes is Micheal Jordan saying "republicans buy sneakers too" and it's something that Elon Musk should be thinking about right now, he's alienating 50% of the population, yes the Republicans won the popular vote but only by a couple of million people. Almost 50% of the US and I'd say 75% of Europe aren't impressed by him or Trump and he's completely putting them off buying Teslas. People are free to choose not to buy them as long as he's in charge or until he resigns from the government and stops being a complete c***.
The wider problem is that Tesla, and to a much lesser but significant extent, Spacex, owe their large valuations to faith in Musk. The former is valued insanely for a car company - most are valued at 5-6 times revenue, Tesla has been as high as 130. If you treat it as a tech company, that's around 30 times revenue - which it's still well above. Essentially that valuation is a bet on Musk. Both his alleged genius and closeness to the US government.
Add in the fact Tesla was already facing significant headwinds as a carmaker - competitors catching up, reductions in subsidies, potential trade wars, even before the recent boycotts and protests, and you have a recipe for a sell-off. Its astronomical value was based on vibes, and the vibes have gone bad.
Essentially even now Tesla's shareprice is a bet on it being able to get to Full Self Driving first, do it better than its competitors, and being able to produce its Optimus robots. But there's already some evidence it's behind on these - its FSD doesn't use LiDAR, which every other FSD system does - some of which look to be ahead. WayMo for example, or in China. There Tesla just got regulatory approval for its old self-driving system (which isn't exactly perfect) but is far more expensive than Chinese homegrown ones with access to more data there. The Optimus robots still appeared to be remotely controlled at a recent demo.
So basically, unlike a normal company - where negative publicity might hit share prices a bit, but the fundamentals will still be there, Tesla is a bet on Musk living up to some pretty wild promises - when he's missed loads of deadlines.
So if you think he's completely lost the plot, can no longer be trusted, and/or is liable to fall out with Trump, a sell-off is pretty rational as well as moral.
Tesla's share price is built on a variety of things: 1) they make money building cars unlike many of their competitors 2) they make money by owning the service infrastructure directly 3) they make money selling emissions credits to their competitors 4) they make money selling charging to their competitors
That's all car related so far, but doesn't explain the rest of the price bubble
5) they are starting to make a lot of money selling battery infrastructure - supercharger units, home energy and "megapack" units for commercial energy 6) they hope to make money selling automation to other manufacturers via licensing 7) they hope to make money selling Metal Mickey as your household slave
I think there has to be one more thing that gets ignored:
8) they aren't weighed down by legacy debt
Frankly, so much of their share price is vapourware nonsense linked to 6 and 7 on my list. And I didn't even mention the truck. Other manufacturers also sell EV HGVs but the charging infrastructure is a million miles away from making any of it viable.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
As I said to many others here, I am happy to admit that I am an extremist or whatever on planning but there should be some acknowledgement that the system we currently have is extremist the other way.
The biggest disaster post-war was the 1948 planning act.
We should revert to the planning regime we had in the 1930s. Which did not result in the collapse of society, or the entirety of green land being concreted over, or the end of agriculture, or any other catastrophes.
The 1948 act was an unmitigated disaster that means we have never again seen the rates of development we saw before it. It should be abolished. The 1930s planning system worked.
Let anyone who wants to object to other people doing what they want to do so object on X or Facebook or any other means of objection they want to raise - but those objections should have no legal standing.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
I don’t mean this unkindly but what gives you the right? It’s easy to object when you already have a home.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
People are entitled to a say but that doesn't mean it has to be listened to.
Every mast that gets applications gets dozens of objections from local residents. Should we listen to those and object it? Where exactly do you draw the line?
I'm happy to hear the argument in a rural area - maybe - but masts gets rejected in urban areas for visual obstruction. Frankly I do not see why in an urban area you have the right to complain about visual obstruction. But people do. And it's the most common reasons masts get rejected.
Personally I don't think that is the right approach, do you?
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
I wouldn't go so far as bartholomewroberts, but we do need a severe rebalancing. We're addicted to consultations and overly broad requirements, and the vocal NIMBY tendency is too normalised, too easy to find the pretextual arguments to cover for bullcrap ones, and politicians too incentivised to set up the system to cater to those blockers.
It's frustrating because developers do still have a lot to answer for, a free for all would come with problems, but things are so bad right now that it's easy to overlook that.
As I said to many others here, I am happy to admit that I am an extremist or whatever on planning but there should be some acknowledgement that the system we currently have is extremist the other way.
Yes and no. Broadly a lot of stuff gets approved. Trowbridge, a town near where I live, has probably doubled in size over the last 30 years. Warminster is getting in on the act now. There are vast amounts of plausible building plots and in general approval to build is gained.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
I don’t mean this unkindly but what gives you the right? It’s easy to object when you already have a home.
Like it or not, you share this country with 68 million other people, and their welfare extends beyond the bounds of their home. As someone who lives in a flat, I am dependent on the provision of green spaces in my city. It's critically important to my mental health.
Much of the UK population's sense of worth comes from the natural environment and landscape. It's why we go walking in the Lake District, or donate to the RSPB. It's why we preserve our cathedrals and castles. Our children need woods, parks and fields to play in, as well as houses to live in, and places to park our cars.
You might not value these things. We may not understand each other at all. So we must meet in the middle and compromise. That might be destroying an ancient woodland for HS2. Or diverting a bypass around a wetland.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
People are entitled to a say but that doesn't mean it has to be listened to.
Every mast that gets applications gets dozens of objections from local residents. Should we listen to those and object it? Where exactly do you draw the line?
I'm happy to hear the argument in a rural area - maybe - but masts gets rejected in urban areas for visual obstruction. Frankly I do not see why in an urban area you have the right to complain about visual obstruction. But people do. And it's the most common reasons masts get rejected.
Personally I don't think that is the right approach, do you?
I think you are right in already built up areas to be honest.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Then I think you fail to understand what a community is.
As I said to many others here, I am happy to admit that I am an extremist or whatever on planning but there should be some acknowledgement that the system we currently have is extremist the other way.
Yes and no. Broadly a lot of stuff gets approved. Trowbridge, a town near where I live, has probably doubled in size over the last 30 years. Warminster is getting in on the act now. There are vast amounts of plausible building plots and in general approval to build is gained.
The biggest expansion of that town that was supposed to happen in the last 10 years hasn't, and is a big reason the housing land supply situation in the county is in such trouble and open to speculative development elsewhere. Bats were one of the major hindrances.
But there has also been lots and lots of building in areas which no doubt have tricky aspects of their own but which are more attractive to developers to get a move on with.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
I don’t mean this unkindly but what gives you the right? It’s easy to object when you already have a home.
Like it or not, you share this country with 68 million other people, and their welfare extends beyond the bounds of their home. As someone who lives in a flat, I am dependent on the provision of green spaces in my city. It's critically important to my mental health.
Much of the UK population's sense of worth comes from the natural environment and landscape. It's why we go walking in the Lake District, or donate to the RSPB. It's why we preserve our cathedrals and castles. Our children need woods, parks and fields to play in, as well as houses to live in, and places to park our cars.
You might not value these things. We may not understand each other at all. So we must meet in the middle and compromise. That might be destroying an ancient woodland for HS2. Or diverting a bypass around a wetland.
The joy of living in a rural village is that when I'm not getting lost in my back garden, I can go for a walk. Out the door, cross the road, round the corner and I am out in open countryside. It's bliss.
Like it or not, you share this country with 68 million other people, and their welfare extends beyond the bounds of their home. As someone who lives in a flat, I am dependent on the provision of green spaces in my city. It's critically important to my mental health.
Much of the UK population's sense of worth comes from the natural environment and landscape. It's why we go walking in the Lake District, or donate to the RSPB. It's why we preserve our cathedrals and castles. Our children need woods, parks and fields to play in, as well as houses to live in, and places to park our cars.
You might not value these things. We may not understand each other at all. So we must meet in the middle and compromise. That might be destroying an ancient woodland for HS2. Or diverting a bypass around a wetland.
I am very happy to meet in the middle - but nobody here was prepared to do that when I tried to argue my case earlier.
Phone masts do not destroy castles, or woods, or playgrounds. They just stick in the ground. I am genuinely baffled why anyone would object to them being built.
As I said to many others here, I am happy to admit that I am an extremist or whatever on planning but there should be some acknowledgement that the system we currently have is extremist the other way.
Yes and no. Broadly a lot of stuff gets approved. Trowbridge, a town near where I live, has probably doubled in size over the last 30 years. Warminster is getting in on the act now. There are vast amounts of plausible building plots and in general approval to build is gained.
Broadly nowhere near enough stuff gets approved though.
Individual towns may have doubled in size, but our population has increased by millions. Maybe without restrictions the town would have needed to treble, quadruple or go up orders of magnitude in size?
Maybe villages might need to become towns, and towns become cities.
In general approval takes far too long to gain and is gained by far too few people.
The joy of living in a rural village is that when I'm not getting lost in my back garden, I can go for a walk. Out the door, cross the road, round the corner and I am out in open countryside. It's bliss.
And how does having a physical structure 20m high in any way inhibit that?
Talking to a German this evening. Slightly depressing. “Is it true you British are really scared of war with Putin?” “Think of all the constructive things you could spend money on rather than armaments”.
Took all my self control not to say “well, we’ve been here before”.
Just tell them that Chamberlin wanted to introduce Universal Health Insurance. Not buy Spitfires and Hurricanes.
I was close, but didn’t. Hell, when she started talking about the climate crisis I was so hard swallowing the temptation to shout “nuclear” that I almost froze up.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Then I think you fail to understand what a community is.
If your community wants to chip in for some community-owned land to be developed, or left undeveloped, as you want then that's your choice.
However I'm not a socialist. Land that does not belong to the community belongs to the owner of it, not the community. The community should mind its own business.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
People are entitled to a say but that doesn't mean it has to be listened to.
Every mast that gets applications gets dozens of objections from local residents. Should we listen to those and object it? Where exactly do you draw the line?
I'm happy to hear the argument in a rural area - maybe - but masts gets rejected in urban areas for visual obstruction. Frankly I do not see why in an urban area you have the right to complain about visual obstruction. But people do. And it's the most common reasons masts get rejected.
Personally I don't think that is the right approach, do you?
Free for all for everything is a step too far for most people. But I do think you are on to the right idea with masts and the like. You see all the time objections to things like that, or even modest development on frankly ugly or mediocre ground, on the basis that it will harm character etc. Most of those will get approved under delegated authority or on appeal because the pretexts given for rejection are ridiculous, but the system shouldn't be built on the idea that we expect bullcrap decisions and appeals to correct them as a matter of course, it should be more exceptional than that.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
As I said to many others here, I am happy to admit that I am an extremist or whatever on planning but there should be some acknowledgement that the system we currently have is extremist the other way.
Yes and no. Broadly a lot of stuff gets approved. Trowbridge, a town near where I live, has probably doubled in size over the last 30 years. Warminster is getting in on the act now. There are vast amounts of plausible building plots and in general approval to build is gained.
Broadly nowhere near enough stuff gets approved though.
Individual towns may have doubled in size, but our population has increased by millions. Maybe without restrictions the town would have needed to treble, quadruple or go up orders of magnitude in size?
Maybe villages might need to become towns, and towns become cities.
In general approval takes far too long to gain and is gained by far too few people.
In London boroughs, 80% or more of Hutchison 3G applications were rejected. For 20m high masts, that are slim and stick on the pavement. That is utterly absurd and by any definition, "extremist". But we are told here all day that planning works.
Somebody - @RochdalePioneers? - said people get wound up when people are told things aren't happening when they are. People here say planning works. It doesn't. I see the impacts of it every day.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Then I think you fail to understand what a community is.
I don't agree with how far his position goes, but I do think he has a point that, as a broad principle, the community does not extend to, say, me wanting to put in the kind of windows I like. I remember this argument on here about people painting their house a garish colour or something - I might not like it, but I can and should have to live with it.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
The joy of living in a rural village is that when I'm not getting lost in my back garden, I can go for a walk. Out the door, cross the road, round the corner and I am out in open countryside. It's bliss.
And how does having a physical structure 20m high in any way inhibit that?
Thank heavens we got pylons built before we had the modern day approach to planning, we'd have nothing.
Reform recently went all in on extremely expensive underground cabling to appease rural nimbys.
"Woman from Wales classed as 'illegal alien' and detained in US cell for 12 days 'Becky is a kind, adventurous young woman who simply wants to return home to her family,' said her father"
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Its no uglier, and as useful, as the lamp post next to it.
If land can have a lamp post I see no reason why it can't have a mast.
If the owners of Edinburgh Castle don't want to have one on its grounds, then that's their choice. Outside of its grounds, then it ought to be fair game if that's what its owners want.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Well exactly.
And I guarantee a more attractive pole would get 80% of the same objections. The things i've seen people object to nothing surprises me anymore. Spend more than 5 minutes interacting with the planning system and you have a good chance of becoming a development hawk.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
My post literally said the opposite. I'd accept it.
But to me it is seriously ugly. People want to live and work in beautiful places - that's why you go on holiday to Bath, not Hull - and we should aim to achieve that for people. I think that is even more important in cities and towns, where most of us spend our time.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
Zoning. The way to cut planning admin massively. Some places you can build whatever the hell you like, so long as it complies with building regs. Some places there’s a presumption towards development but within certain parameters (height, footprint, materials, green space etc). And some places it’s bloody hard to build because they’re designated as beauty spots.
Would take 99% of planning faff away just like that
And I heard many complaints that networks just try to save a few quid.
I find this offensive to myself and my colleagues/friends, who try very hard to put in sites that don't annoy people. But you can't overcome physics.
As I've said, the best solution if you want fewer masts, is to support taller, multi-operator sites. Cornerstone has developed a site which is tall but can host two operators in a slim-frame design and with integrated cabinets at the base.
It's still a tower but I firmly reject the idea networks don't try. They are bending over backwards trying to build. But planning is honestly a big inhibitor.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
Zoning. The way to cut planning admin massively. Some places you can build whatever the gell you like, so long as it complied with building regs. Some places there’s a presumption towards development but within certain parameters (height, footprint, materials, green space etc). And some places it’s bloody hard to build because they’re designated as beauty spots.
Would take 99% of planning faff away just like that
I'd prefer a complete and utter free for all, but I'd be happy to compromise with that.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
My post literally said the opposite. I'd accept it.
But to me it is seriously ugly. People want to live and work in beautiful places - that's why you go on holiday to Bath, not Hull - and we should aim to achieve that for people. I think that is even more important in cities and towns, where most of us spend our time.
Do you honestly think it is anymore ugly than a pylon or telegraph pole?
Telegraph poles have very liberal planning rights, why are they excluded but nothing else is?
I just fail to see how that can ruin an urban landscape. I am sorry I just do not agree with you. If you stuck one outside my window I wouldn't even blink.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Then I think you fail to understand what a community is.
I don't agree with how far his position goes, but I do think he has a point that, as a broad principle, the community does not extend to, say, me wanting to put in the kind of windows I like. I remember this argument on here about people painting their house a garish colour or something - I might not like it, but I can and should have to live with it.
I’d agree with that. It’s not about creating Stepford Wives towns etc. It’s more about communities having a say about how that community should develop (as in community plans etc). But there ought to be some measure of control. Arguably in this country weve allowed the objection industry to get too powerful.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
Zoning. The way to cut planning admin massively. Some places you can build whatever the hell you like, so long as it complies with building regs. Some places there’s a presumption towards development but within certain parameters (height, footprint, materials, green space etc). And some places it’s bloody hard to build because they’re designated as beauty spots.
Would take 99% of planning faff away just like that
And see 100% of councils in the UK lobbying their MPs not to introduce zoning.
They will have loved the consultation government ran last year though, as some of the options realllly would curtail them.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
Zoning. The way to cut planning admin massively. Some places you can build whatever the hell you like, so long as it complies with building regs. Some places there’s a presumption towards development but within certain parameters (height, footprint, materials, green space etc). And some places it’s bloody hard to build because they’re designated as beauty spots.
Would take 99% of planning faff away just like that
Good post Tim, I can agree with this as a compromise.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
You've not noticed that this is being proposed in conjunction with streamlining planning rules ?
If we streamline planning rules, why is this necessary?
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
I got comprehensively shouted down for saying much the same thing. But on this you are absolutely right.
It’s possible to change the emphasis on where the line is re allowing nothing ->allowing everything. Most people would not accept a complete wild west free-for-all, which I think is what you favour re 5G etc. But it’s also true that all too often objections get in they way of raesonable development. It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
Its not your land.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
People are entitled to a say in what happens in their community. I think you are an outlier in the general public on this. I’m not against development - far from it. We had a biogas plant built nearby to extreme objections from locals, but we were supportive. The point is it shouldn’t be that you can just do whatever you want without regard to your community.
Why are they entitled to a say?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
Then I think you fail to understand what a community is.
I don't agree with how far his position goes, but I do think he has a point that, as a broad principle, the community does not extend to, say, me wanting to put in the kind of windows I like. I remember this argument on here about people painting their house a garish colour or something - I might not like it, but I can and should have to live with it.
I’d agree with that. It’s not about creating Stepford Wives towns etc. It’s more about communities having a say about how that community should develop (as in community plans etc). But there ought to be some measure of control. Arguably in this country weve allowed the objection industry to get too powerful.
Absolutely the community should have a say on community-owned land to develop community plans.
Private land belongs to the private owner, not a socialised state though.
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Well exactly.
And I guarantee a more attractive pole would get 80% of the same objections. The things i've seen people object to nothing surprises me anymore. Spend more than 5 minutes interacting with the planning system and you have a good chance of becoming a development hawk.
They introduced the lollipop design as a way to hide them to look more like other things. They got objected just as often.
Vodafone made a site that looks like a flagpole, still got objections. As people read "phone" they object.
People object sites on buildings with panels already on them. Because they do.
This is what we should stop, it is utter lunacy how it works at present.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
That is fuck ugly. No one with any sense of aesthetics would deny it. But I probably wouldn't reject it, on balance.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Personally I don't think it's any more ugly than a pylon, or a telegraph pole, do you? "Fuck ugly"? It's a pole in the ground for goodness sake.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Well exactly.
And I guarantee a more attractive pole would get 80% of the same objections. The things i've seen people object to nothing surprises me anymore. Spend more than 5 minutes interacting with the planning system and you have a good chance of becoming a development hawk.
They introduced the lollipop design as a way to hide them to look more like other things. They got objected just as often.
Vodafone made a site that looks like a flagpole, still got objections. As people read "phone" they object.
People object sites on buildings with panels already on them. Because they do.
This is what we should stop, it is utter lunacy how it works at present.
How much does it cost to move a 5g phone mast? Ballpark figure.
We have one installed near us, I must have walked past it a dozen times without even noticing, but I've got leaflets, Facebook groups etc. all set up by neighbours up in arms about this destroying the local character etc.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
A time with a population almost half what it is now?
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
And I heard many complaints that networks just try to save a few quid.
I find this offensive to myself and my colleagues/friends, who try very hard to put in sites that don't annoy people. But you can't overcome physics.
As I've said, the best solution if you want fewer masts, is to support taller, multi-operator sites. Cornerstone has developed a site which is tall but can host two operators in a slim-frame design and with integrated cabinets at the base.
It's still a tower but I firmly reject the idea networks don't try. They are bending over backwards trying to build. But planning is honestly a big inhibitor.
Don't take it personally mate, some people will object to anything. A lot of the complaints are people who think masts cause cancer, no way of persuading them a different design is going to be any better. At least you've got a job that's doing something useful for the world.
How much does it cost to move a 5g phone mast? Ballpark figure.
We have one installed near us, I must have walked past it a dozen times without even noticing, but I've got leaflets, Facebook groups etc. all set up by neighbours up in arms about this destroying the local character etc.
Probably anywhere from £20k-£30k ranging upwards of £100k or more.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
A time with a population almost half what it is now?
Yeah - and a time when we managed to build more houses then than any time since.
Us having a higher population now is all the more reason why we should be building and removing restrictions, not increasing them.
If someone wants a house, or a factory, or a pylon, or mast, or anything else they should be able to build whatever they damn please on their own damned land and everyone else should be told to mind their own business that its nothing to do with them.
If you want a view of a field, buy a damned field.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
If they put them in the middle of the pavement, and cluttered up the street with more cabinets of random shapes and colours - can't you see how outrageous that is for pedestrians and mobility impaired folk, mothers with prams, etc. etc..
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
To me, the problem there is lots of clutter, just aggregated. Streamline it.
And I heard many complaints that networks just try to save a few quid.
I find this offensive to myself and my colleagues/friends, who try very hard to put in sites that don't annoy people. But you can't overcome physics.
As I've said, the best solution if you want fewer masts, is to support taller, multi-operator sites. Cornerstone has developed a site which is tall but can host two operators in a slim-frame design and with integrated cabinets at the base.
It's still a tower but I firmly reject the idea networks don't try. They are bending over backwards trying to build. But planning is honestly a big inhibitor.
Don't take it personally mate, some people will object to anything. A lot of the complaints are people who think masts cause cancer, no way of persuading them a different design is going to be any better. At least you've got a job that's doing something useful for the world.
There was some nonsense in Bath along those lines.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
He's right that that's where most government spending.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
People like “tough” policies that don’t affect them. People are selfish by nature.
So they want to tax the rich, but with “rich” set at an income or wealth level just above their own. And they want to clamp down on benefits scroungers, but with their own benefits protected, of course.
It’s all optics. That’s why simple policies like a penny on income tax or the HSCL are so good, because they cut through this. They present a broad based tax rise or benefits cut, but do so in a way that either looks really small (just a penny) or is morally hard to oppose (to fund social care / national security / “our nhs”).
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
To me, the problem there is lots of clutter, just aggregated. Streamline it.
They do:
Here is what they put in if one gets rejected normally.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
If it was such a disaster, why did we not have this problem in the 1990s?
We did, housing constructions were lower in the 90s than they were in the 30s.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
If they put them in the middle of the pavement, and cluttered up the street with more cabinets of random shapes and colours - can't you see how outrageous that is for pedestrians and mobility impaired folk, mothers with prams, etc. etc..
But they don't put them in the middle of the pavement. There are so many rules, they have to be set back from the pavement, can't block access routes etc.
They don't just plop them randomly.
The one there is set back from the pavement and replaces an existing site. That's why it is more cluttered than usual because there is one already there.
Personal interest? Reduction of our quality of life? Doesn’t mean that our objection would win, and if the processes are followed so be it. I’m merely suggesting a free for all do anything is not what the vast majority of people want.
But how does a phone mast reduce your quality of life, how does it impact you beyond giving you a better phone signal?
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
I don’t object to masts and would have no issue with that in the field next to my house. I would be unhappy if the view of the countryside that I spent money on (the extension with balcony) was turned into houses. And yes that’s a NIMBY attitude, and can be called that. We wouldn’t have built what we did if (a) the view wasn’t there and (b) we didn’t believe it would be there for many years to come.
Maybe you should buy the land with the view, then you can keep it as your heart desires?
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Do people freeload off the Lake Dustrict?
Not at all, I pay a fortune to businesses there to enjoy their land they own.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
I have not said they would be doing anything wrong. I’ve said I would object. And then someone, somewhere would make a decision. At the moment the balance is probably too far in the objections winning column, but going to the other extreme is not the answer.
Why isn't it?
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
A time with a population almost half what it is now?
Yeah - and a time when we managed to build more houses then than any time since.
Us having a higher population now is all the more reason why we should be building and removing restrictions, not increasing them.
If someone wants a house, or a factory, or a pylon, or mast, or anything else they should be able to build whatever they damn please on their own damned land and everyone else should be told to mind their own business that its nothing to do with them.
If you want a view of a field, buy a damned field.
I willingly admit that have no right to a view of the countryside. Do you not think that your absolutism is too much though? Would you be ok with anything next to your house? Anything at all? Sewage works? Chicken farm? All night night club?
Comments
https://www.reformparty.uk/counter
If everyone expects compensation for anything that happens nearby, even national infrastructure, then we'll have a new army of compo-nimbys, stopping all developments unless they get paid.
If it is national infrastructure and required, then build it.
No wonder HS2 failed.
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
36m
It will be fine long-term
As long as the elephant of debt does not fall off the toadstool it is balancing on in the interim.
Musk: The waste and fraud in entitlement spending— Most of the federal spending is entitlements.. that’s the big one to eliminate… That is also the mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants..
The Onion
No more “bullying” than people strongly disagreeing with me about where to put infrastructure.
And if we don't streamline planning rules, then its not fixing the problem.
Either way, tackle the root cause. The reason we don't have growth is people feel entitled to prevent it. We need some liberalism so that anyone who wants to build a pylon, or any other industry or housing or anything else, can just do it, and not be begging for permission first.
But no, Hill Republicans are still bending the knee to Trump.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/four-dimensional-chess-trump-helping-russia-putin-ukraine-zelensky
Oh look—both Trump and Elonia used the so-called "baby stairs" on Air Force One tonight—the same ones they mocked Biden for using occasionally.
Once again, every attack on Biden was just projection. The general public got played for suckers.
https://x.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1898922856563548395
Trumpski apparently has bruising on his hand
It’s tricky. Our house is adjacent to a field, owned by neighbours, who keep horses there. It’s idyllic. We have built an extension with a balcony overlooking. Yet it would be possible for someone to build houses or other developments there, to which we would clearly object.
You should be free to object all you like, free speech and all.
However if your neighbour wants to build on their land they should be able to do so, even if you object, without anyone else having a say. Their land, their choice - your land, your choice.
1) they make money building cars unlike many of their competitors
2) they make money by owning the service infrastructure directly
3) they make money selling emissions credits to their competitors
4) they make money selling charging to their competitors
That's all car related so far, but doesn't explain the rest of the price bubble
5) they are starting to make a lot of money selling battery infrastructure - supercharger units, home energy and "megapack" units for commercial energy
6) they hope to make money selling automation to other manufacturers via licensing
7) they hope to make money selling Metal Mickey as your household slave
I think there has to be one more thing that gets ignored:
8) they aren't weighed down by legacy debt
Frankly, so much of their share price is vapourware nonsense linked to 6 and 7 on my list. And I didn't even mention the truck. Other manufacturers also sell EV HGVs but the charging infrastructure is a million miles away from making any of it viable.
We should revert to the planning regime we had in the 1930s. Which did not result in the collapse of society, or the entirety of green land being concreted over, or the end of agriculture, or any other catastrophes.
The 1948 act was an unmitigated disaster that means we have never again seen the rates of development we saw before it. It should be abolished. The 1930s planning system worked.
Let anyone who wants to object to other people doing what they want to do so object on X or Facebook or any other means of objection they want to raise - but those objections should have no legal standing.
Every mast that gets applications gets dozens of objections from local residents. Should we listen to those and object it? Where exactly do you draw the line?
I'm happy to hear the argument in a rural area - maybe - but masts gets rejected in urban areas for visual obstruction. Frankly I do not see why in an urban area you have the right to complain about visual obstruction. But people do. And it's the most common reasons masts get rejected.
Personally I don't think that is the right approach, do you?
They should be entitled to a say on community-owned land, on privately-held land it should be for the owners to determine what they want to do.
Your neighbours land belongs to your neighbour, not your community. The community should mind its own bloody business.
It's frustrating because developers do still have a lot to answer for, a free for all would come with problems, but things are so bad right now that it's easy to overlook that.
Much of the UK population's sense of worth comes from the natural environment and landscape. It's why we go walking in the Lake District, or donate to the RSPB. It's why we preserve our cathedrals and castles. Our children need woods, parks and fields to play in, as well as houses to live in, and places to park our cars.
You might not value these things. We may not understand each other at all. So we must meet in the middle and compromise. That might be destroying an ancient woodland for HS2. Or diverting a bypass around a wetland.
I am happy to admit - again - that I am a minority in how I think you should be able to build anywhere but surely even you can see that it's madness that in urban areas anything can sensibly be rejected?
Do you find this offensive?
The majority of exactly this design were rejected in London. I do not think councils had any right to reject these but they did, wholesale.
But there has also been lots and lots of building in areas which no doubt have tricky aspects of their own but which are more attractive to developers to get a move on with.
Phone masts do not destroy castles, or woods, or playgrounds. They just stick in the ground. I am genuinely baffled why anyone would object to them being built.
What do people have against them?
How did I know he was going to say that? 😂
Individual towns may have doubled in size, but our population has increased by millions. Maybe without restrictions the town would have needed to treble, quadruple or go up orders of magnitude in size?
Maybe villages might need to become towns, and towns become cities.
In general approval takes far too long to gain and is gained by far too few people.
However I'm not a socialist. Land that does not belong to the community belongs to the owner of it, not the community. The community should mind its own business.
You wouldn't pop one in front of Edinburgh Castle though. Or slap in the middle of the Lairig Ghru, like these chancing telecoms companies are trying to do.
Somebody - @RochdalePioneers? - said people get wound up when people are told things aren't happening when they are. People here say planning works. It doesn't. I see the impacts of it every day.
But in any case, frankly that is irrelevant. What is the impact on London?
Happy to hear the arguments in places like Edinburgh Castle - and in that case they could have used the existing EE shared site near by - but in London, do you really support 80% of these being rejected? Really?
Reform recently went all in on extremely expensive underground cabling to appease rural nimbys.
'Becky is a kind, adventurous young woman who simply wants to return home to her family,' said her father"
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/becky-burke-usa-illegal-alien-31166324
If land can have a lamp post I see no reason why it can't have a mast.
If the owners of Edinburgh Castle don't want to have one on its grounds, then that's their choice. Outside of its grounds, then it ought to be fair game if that's what its owners want.
And I guarantee a more attractive pole would get 80% of the same objections. The things i've seen people object to nothing surprises me anymore. Spend more than 5 minutes interacting with the planning system and you have a good chance of becoming a development hawk.
But to me it is seriously ugly. People want to live and work in beautiful places - that's why you go on holiday to Bath, not Hull - and we should aim to achieve that for people. I think that is even more important in cities and towns, where most of us spend our time.
Otherwise, if its not yours, then don't expect to freeload off others.
Would take 99% of planning faff away just like that
I find this offensive to myself and my colleagues/friends, who try very hard to put in sites that don't annoy people. But you can't overcome physics.
As I've said, the best solution if you want fewer masts, is to support taller, multi-operator sites. Cornerstone has developed a site which is tall but can host two operators in a slim-frame design and with integrated cabinets at the base.
It's still a tower but I firmly reject the idea networks don't try. They are bending over backwards trying to build. But planning is honestly a big inhibitor.
Telegraph poles have very liberal planning rights, why are they excluded but nothing else is?
I just fail to see how that can ruin an urban landscape. I am sorry I just do not agree with you. If you stuck one outside my window I wouldn't even blink.
They will have loved the consultation government ran last year though, as some of the options realllly would curtail them.
Private land belongs to the private owner, not a socialised state though.
He's wrong about there being lots of fraud there, not least because this has been an area where successive governments have been keen to crack down. (Reagan era "welfare queens" being a classic example.)
Vodafone made a site that looks like a flagpole, still got objections. As people read "phone" they object.
People object sites on buildings with panels already on them. Because they do.
This is what we should stop, it is utter lunacy how it works at present.
If you want to keep the view of the field next to you, there's a simple solution - buy it.
Otherwise, if someone else does, then they've not done anything wrong.
It worked just fine in the 1930s. It was a socialist policy implemented by Attlee and its been an unmitigated disaster. We should liberalise and revert back to what we had before then.
We have one installed near us, I must have walked past it a dozen times without even noticing, but I've got leaflets, Facebook groups etc. all set up by neighbours up in arms about this destroying the local character etc.
Us having a higher population now is all the more reason why we should be building and removing restrictions, not increasing them.
If someone wants a house, or a factory, or a pylon, or mast, or anything else they should be able to build whatever they damn please on their own damned land and everyone else should be told to mind their own business that its nothing to do with them.
If you want a view of a field, buy a damned field.
So they want to tax the rich, but with “rich” set at an income or wealth level just above their own. And they want to clamp down on benefits scroungers, but with their own benefits protected, of course.
It’s all optics. That’s why simple policies like a penny on income tax or the HSCL are so good, because they cut through this. They present a broad based tax rise or benefits cut, but do so in a way that either looks really small (just a penny) or is morally hard to oppose (to fund social care / national security / “our nhs”).
Here is what they put in if one gets rejected normally.
They don't just plop them randomly.
The one there is set back from the pavement and replaces an existing site. That's why it is more cluttered than usual because there is one already there.