A lot of cracks appearing which should start giving SKS a foothold. The next few months should give us an idea whether he has the imagination and ability to take Labour forward.
F1: Betfair has Verstappen/Red Bull as favourites (1.92, 1.7 respectively). I think that's correct. The French Grand Prix was reckoned to be good for Mercedes but they ended up 2nd and 4th. Ok, that was with inferior strategy, but still.
Now Perez is up to speed I think they have an excellent chance of that title. The Hamilton-Verstappen duel should be closer.
Red Bull definitely have the constructors championship to lose. Hamilton could still pull off the actual championship but Bottas isn't going to score enough points to catch up with Perez.
“I have been an Amersham resident for more than 35 years and can say without reservation that the government’s proposed reform of planning laws is the overriding reason for the switch to the Lib Dems (“Lib Dem surge could snatch 23 prime seats from the Tories after Chesham & Amersham win”, News, Jun 19). By contrast, most local people doubt that this shift would affect HS2 at this late stage — tunnels and access development have been under way for over a year next to Amersham, so are unlikely to be abandoned.
Property in the area is expensive (nearby Beaconsfield is one of the most expensive towns in the UK). People pay several times the national average property price to stay in and near an area of outstanding natural beauty with amazing local scenery and with an easy commute to London by rail and Tube. If Conservative planning reforms proceed then we can expect a similar switch to the Lib Dems in future local and county council elections.”
Surely that’s a spoof, or do people really have so little self-awareness?
Nope - except for HS2 being a done deal that sounds exactly like my parents.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
“I have been an Amersham resident for more than 35 years and can say without reservation that the government’s proposed reform of planning laws is the overriding reason for the switch to the Lib Dems (“Lib Dem surge could snatch 23 prime seats from the Tories after Chesham & Amersham win”, News, Jun 19). By contrast, most local people doubt that this shift would affect HS2 at this late stage — tunnels and access development have been under way for over a year next to Amersham, so are unlikely to be abandoned.
Property in the area is expensive (nearby Beaconsfield is one of the most expensive towns in the UK). People pay several times the national average property price to stay in and near an area of outstanding natural beauty with amazing local scenery and with an easy commute to London by rail and Tube. If Conservative planning reforms proceed then we can expect a similar switch to the Lib Dems in future local and county council elections.”
"with amazing local scenery and with an easy commute to London by rail and Tube".
Fantastic lack of self-awareness. I bet they would have been all NIMBY about those initial rail and (overground) Tube developments they now laud....
Dictionary definition NIMBYism. I live here and I am prepared to pay dollah to stop other people also living here.
Is that not an acceptable strategy? A line has to be drawn somewhere - the existing planning framework means build and build and build and build only to be told you aren't building enough. And the new laws were going to make it easier to build!
Up here there is plenty of house building going on. But it is a combination of individual projects and pockets of developments on the edges of villages. They don't change the fundamental nature of the place or the environment unlike so many of the godawful developments we were trying to stop in Stockton. It isn't "don't build", it is "think what you build and where you build it".
There's a big difference in demand between Scotland and England too of course.
From 1997 to 2018 the population of Scotland increased by 6% From 1997 to 2018 the population of England increased by 15%
Your mileage may vary from location to location of course, but overall there's a much bigger increase in pressures in England, that requires much more building as a result.
“I have been an Amersham resident for more than 35 years and can say without reservation that the government’s proposed reform of planning laws is the overriding reason for the switch to the Lib Dems (“Lib Dem surge could snatch 23 prime seats from the Tories after Chesham & Amersham win”, News, Jun 19). By contrast, most local people doubt that this shift would affect HS2 at this late stage — tunnels and access development have been under way for over a year next to Amersham, so are unlikely to be abandoned.
Property in the area is expensive (nearby Beaconsfield is one of the most expensive towns in the UK). People pay several times the national average property price to stay in and near an area of outstanding natural beauty with amazing local scenery and with an easy commute to London by rail and Tube. If Conservative planning reforms proceed then we can expect a similar switch to the Lib Dems in future local and county council elections.”
Surely that’s a spoof, or do people really have so little self-awareness?
Mr. eek, mind you, but for the DNFs (I forget the first cause, but the second was the Monaco wheel nut) it'd look much tighter.
McLaren looking good for third again, but they need to be able to take advantage of the major rule changes next season.
Bottas got taken out by Russell, for his other DNF. He’s actually doing better than the scoreboard suggests, was let down by the team yesterday as both drivers called for a two-stop.
Bottas did go missing at Baku (and wherever he was racing against Russell) but he's been ill-served by the team. Wolff trying to blame him for the nut issue, initially, was not impressive.
The curves are basically identical, everywhere. As you’d expect. Delta is so much more virulent, it dominates very quickly. It will be the same worldwide
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
A lot of cracks appearing which should start giving SKS a foothold. The next few months should give us an idea whether he has the imagination and ability to take Labour forward.
"Though Zayd said Galloway wasn't "perfect", he said the veteran Scot's policies were better than Labour's in terms of promising to invest in the local community and his support for the Palestinians."
And give him an 80 seat majority at GE's.....as Sid and Doris are the ones that get very annoyed at being labelled thick racists by people like you and thus turn up at the polls even more determined to vote for him.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
A lot of cracks appearing which should start giving SKS a foothold. The next few months should give us an idea whether he has the imagination and ability to take Labour forward.
The curves are basically identical, everywhere. As you’d expect. Delta is so much more virulent, it dominates very quickly. It will be the same worldwide
It this necessarily as bad as it seems? Delta is taking a much higher share of new infections but wouldn't much of these these likely to have been new infections anyway, i.e. under a previous iteration of the virus?
"Of all the vaccines we use, in infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, none of them have any long-term effects," Schaffner said. "No vaccine has shown side effects 2 to 5 years later. That doesn't exist because there's no biological reason for it."
Schaffner said the argument could also be made that "we know vastly more about mRNA vaccines than we do about Novavax. Novavax is new whereas we've given the mRNA vaccines to 170 million people in the U.S. alone. We may know more about the safety there than we do about Novavax."
Wen said it's still important to emphasize the good safety record of the vaccines while still taking patient preference into account.
"I have no concerns about the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines," Wen told MedPage Today. "That said, there are individuals who may have these concerns, and if another vaccine is what it takes to get them vaccinated, I think we should do everything we can to dispel misinformation while increasing options."...
...Schaffner added that primary care physicians, who often have existing close relationships with their patients, have a big role to play in addressing remaining hesitancy.
"We have to respect why they feel that way and try to find out what is causing it," he said. "We never disrespect the person who is hesitant. We never dismiss them or belittle them. When they realize we will take their concerns seriously, they'll tell us what their issue is. Then we'll say, that's pretty common, I've heard that before, and their anxiety is eased."...
Care to name a culture where 2+2 does not = 4 then
Accountancy.
Management consulting. The correct answer is '2+2 = whatever you want it to'
In my limited experience of being on the receiving end, management consulting is more like 2 + 2 = whatever the client's workforce told us it was. Here's the bill.
Does anyone think George Galloway has a chance of actually winning in Batley & Spen?
An outside shot which would depend on:
(1) generally low turnout except for: (2) Muslim vote that is organised and swings for Galloway (3) Heavy Woollen vote not going to the Tories but staying at home / fringe candidates (4) Tories not inspiring people
Look for BJ going there as he did with Hartlepool pre-election. If the Tories are confident, he will be up there.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Does anyone think George Galloway has a chance of actually winning in Batley & Spen?
If that Dan Hodges article is half true, it sounds horrifically toxic in Batley & Spen. Literal whipping up of anti semitism to get the Muslim vote. What a disaster
Galloway spreads venom wherever he goes. It should worry decent Unionists that he claims to be one of their spokesmen.
The curves are basically identical, everywhere. As you’d expect. Delta is so much more virulent, it dominates very quickly. It will be the same worldwide
It this necessarily as bad as it seems? Delta is taking a much higher share of new infections but wouldn't much of these these likely to have been new infections anyway, i.e. under a previous iteration of the virus?
It’s bad because Delta is more transmissible = more people in hospital, quicker. There is also some debated evidence that it is nastier once you get it, and that it partly evades the vaccines - certainly after just one dose
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
"Of all the vaccines we use, in infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, none of them have any long-term effects," Schaffner said. "No vaccine has shown side effects 2 to 5 years later. That doesn't exist because there's no biological reason for it."
Schaffner said the argument could also be made that "we know vastly more about mRNA vaccines than we do about Novavax. Novavax is new whereas we've given the mRNA vaccines to 170 million people in the U.S. alone. We may know more about the safety there than we do about Novavax."
Wen said it's still important to emphasize the good safety record of the vaccines while still taking patient preference into account.
"I have no concerns about the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines," Wen told MedPage Today. "That said, there are individuals who may have these concerns, and if another vaccine is what it takes to get them vaccinated, I think we should do everything we can to dispel misinformation while increasing options."...
...Schaffner added that primary care physicians, who often have existing close relationships with their patients, have a big role to play in addressing remaining hesitancy.
"We have to respect why they feel that way and try to find out what is causing it," he said. "We never disrespect the person who is hesitant. We never dismiss them or belittle them. When they realize we will take their concerns seriously, they'll tell us what their issue is. Then we'll say, that's pretty common, I've heard that before, and their anxiety is eased."...
Mr. eek, mind you, but for the DNFs (I forget the first cause, but the second was the Monaco wheel nut) it'd look much tighter.
McLaren looking good for third again, but they need to be able to take advantage of the major rule changes next season.
Bottas got taken out by Russell, for his other DNF. He’s actually doing better than the scoreboard suggests, was let down by the team yesterday as both drivers called for a two-stop.
The BBC's wireless team were surprised there was no late tire change for Bottas so he could pick up one point for fastest lap (and also stop Verstappen getting it).
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
While its great that houses are finally being built, even if many more are needed to resolve the housing crisis, there needs to be a change in attitudes to saying yes by default to road improvements etc too as well as a change in attitudes to saying yes by default to construction.
Too often an automatic just say no mentality has set in and fixing one alone isn't sufficient.
In the office today. I’m literally the only person here. 🤦♂️
I used to enjoy being the only person in the office. I would get in a couple of hours early to get the important stuff out of the way before people came in and my revolving door started spinning.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
We had a 'developer' who fortunately didn't get permission, who cited a primary school 10 miles away as having vacancies in justifying their proposal.
Scotland has voted five times since the indyref. A reminder of the results: (2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority) 2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority 2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
annual - £3,528.00 - £14.70 - 240 (travel as much as you like in a year) monthly - £4,064.00 - £16.93 - 240 (travel as much as you like in a calendar month) flexi - £164.80 - £20.60 - 8 (travel any 8 days with no time restrictions in a 28 day period) anytime - £23.50 - £23.50 - 1 off-peak - £19.60 - £19.60 - 1 (arrive at WAT after 10:00) super off-peak - £15.40 - £15.40 - 1 (arrive at WAT after 12:00 and cannot return between 16:00 and 19:00)
Obviously if you were buying monthlies you would get a bit better value because you wouldn't have to renew immediately.
I don't think the discount on the flexit ticket is quite enough to be honest. You will have to be confident that you will use them all in 28 days. I suspect there will be a lot more people taking the off-peak option, which is actually cheaper than the flexi ticket. Given that commuting is likely to become more about going in for specific purposes, I can see later commuting making more sense for people.
The Telegraph sees Rishi pondering pensions reform.
Three different reforms to the way in which pension contributions are taxed are being considered amid pressure on the public finances, according to well-placed Whitehall sources.
One of the ideas being examined is reducing the pensions lifetime allowance from a little above £1 million to £800,000 or £900,000, lowering the point above which extra tax charges kick in.
Another would see individuals contributing to pensions getting the same rate of tax relief, meaning higher-rate taxpayers lose out, while a third is new taxation on employer contributions.
Scotland has voted five times since the indyref. A reminder of the results: (2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority) 2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority 2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
Did the SNP become a Unionist party when I wasn't looking?
Otherwise I'm really struggling to see how they were all Unionist majorities in the results.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
While its great that houses are finally being built, even if many more are needed to resolve the housing crisis, there needs to be a change in attitudes to saying yes by default to road improvements etc too as well as a change in attitudes to saying yes by default to construction.
Too often an automatic just say no mentality has set in and fixing one alone isn't sufficient.
Did those houses get permission on appeal - as otherwise it looks like Devon's highways department screwed up.
The Telegraph sees Rishi pondering pensions reform.
Three different reforms to the way in which pension contributions are taxed are being considered amid pressure on the public finances, according to well-placed Whitehall sources.
One of the ideas being examined is reducing the pensions lifetime allowance from a little above £1 million to £800,000 or £900,000, lowering the point above which extra tax charges kick in.
Another would see individuals contributing to pensions getting the same rate of tax relief, meaning higher-rate taxpayers lose out, while a third is new taxation on employer contributions.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
The curves are basically identical, everywhere. As you’d expect. Delta is so much more virulent, it dominates very quickly. It will be the same worldwide
It this necessarily as bad as it seems? Delta is taking a much higher share of new infections but wouldn't much of these these likely to have been new infections anyway, i.e. under a previous iteration of the virus?
It’s bad because Delta is more transmissible = more people in hospital, quicker. There is also some debated evidence that it is nastier once you get it, and that it partly evades the vaccines - certainly after just one dose
The answer is to double jab the world ASAP
If it "escapes" double vaccination, you basically get a cold so far as I can tell. Now there still seems some slight increased risk for the very old and unhealthy - but you can't structure society around the very infirm and refuseniks
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
A lot of cracks appearing which should start giving SKS a foothold. The next few months should give us an idea whether he has the imagination and ability to take Labour forward.
Won't need one. Just read that Dido Harding is going to clear the NHS of foreigners if she gets the job which I hear she will (nod nod wink wink ....know what I mean?)
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Apologies for boring you by expressing my opinion. Have you ever worked at Canary Wharf? I have. It is a depressing, soulless place. What I found was that I could never get my bearings. Now admittedly I have no sense of direction. But I think the problem with the Wharf is that everywhere basically looks the same. And the tall buildings block out the light, so the subconscious signals from the direction of the sunlight aren't there either. These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
Scotland has voted five times since the indyref. A reminder of the results: (2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority) 2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority 2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
You are basically arguing that the current Conservative government at Westminster is illegitimate, as it only got 42% of the vote.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Actually there is loads of land available in cities. The problem is the cost of upgrading infrastructure, far easier to scatter estates across farmland and treat the infrastructure needs as somebody else's problem. One area I know is the Old Kent Road where there is massive potential for housing development, but it needs a £3bn infrastructure project (Bakerloo line extension) to unlock it. That won't happen because the government hates London.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
Yes, from that photo the riverside walk looks to be hugely popular with local people.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Population increasing by a sixth in a generation when the birthdate has been on a declining trend. Wonder where that has come from?
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Apologies for boring you by expressing my opinion. Have you ever worked at Canary Wharf? I have. It is a depressing, soulless place. What I found was that I could never get my bearings. Now admittedly I have no sense of direction. But I think the problem with the Wharf is that everywhere basically looks the same. And the tall buildings block out the light, so the subconscious signals from the direction of the sunlight aren't there either. These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
Depends on the person - I find Canary Wharf a bit of a curates egg. The massive pavements and high level of pedestrianisation in the estate is very welcoming - at least to me. Now there are more people living in the area, the dead zone feeling has definitely diminished. There is also a massive effort (money) spent on keeping the communal areas looking good.
If you are ever there (anyone) - check out the garden they built on top of the Cross Rail station. Due to a clever usage of cover (while leaving it open air) it is worth a visit and a place to sit and enjoy greenery the year round.
Mr. JohnL, that did seem a bizarre omission by Mercedes. They ceded that point to Verstappen, who got 26 points on the day.
They were hoping Perez would get a time penalty for leaving the track when overtaking, which would have handed third spot back to Bottas. He didn't, of course.
There were at least three miscalculations by the Merc strategists during the race.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
I can’t speak for other cities. But most of London is swathed in very poor quality two or three storey Victorian or Georgian terraced housing. Single brick but with shallow foundations and cement mortar. Which makes it prone to subsidence and damp, and expensive to heat. Most of it has been subject to very poor conversion, with no sound proofing, to slice and dice it into ever smaller units.
If you want brownfield, it’s bloody everywhere. The state should compulsory purchase whole streets and rebuild it all a couple of stories higher and to modern standards, with an eye on curing infrastructure pinch points in the mix.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Apologies for boring you by expressing my opinion. Have you ever worked at Canary Wharf? I have. It is a depressing, soulless place. What I found was that I could never get my bearings. Now admittedly I have no sense of direction. But I think the problem with the Wharf is that everywhere basically looks the same. And the tall buildings block out the light, so the subconscious signals from the direction of the sunlight aren't there either. These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
When Docklands was a big flat nothing and Thatcher proposed the Docklands Development Corp, lefties mocked
When she laid the first brick, at Canary Wharf, lefties chortled, satirically
When they finished the first phase - 1 Canada Square - lefties yelled ‘there’s no infrastructure, it’s pointless’
When the Tories installed infrastructure - the DLR, Limehouse Cut - lefties sneered and said ‘the road is too expensive’
When the government extended the Jubilee Line, the left sniffed and said ‘it’s just finance, no one will live there’
Now, when developers build shops, restaurants, bars, museums, hotels, and thousands of apartments, the left says ‘oh it’s so soulless, and I can’t find my way around because it’s all new and I’m a feckin idiot’
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
I admire your willingness to stand up for your views Philip, especially as you do it on free market grounds but the simple fact is that house builders have a massive incentive to talk up the need for the most homes possible and which need to be built in the way that suits them the most ie profits, and the Government has neither the inclination nor the skills to suggest alternatives. It’s also the case that different areas will have different requirements and needs.
The curves are basically identical, everywhere. As you’d expect. Delta is so much more virulent, it dominates very quickly. It will be the same worldwide
It this necessarily as bad as it seems? Delta is taking a much higher share of new infections but wouldn't much of these these likely to have been new infections anyway, i.e. under a previous iteration of the virus?
It’s bad because Delta is more transmissible = more people in hospital, quicker. There is also some debated evidence that it is nastier once you get it, and that it partly evades the vaccines - certainly after just one dose
The answer is to double jab the world ASAP
If it "escapes" double vaccination, you basically get a cold so far as I can tell. Now there still seems some slight increased risk for the very old and unhealthy - but you can't structure society around the very infirm and refuseniks
Ahem.
Contrary to what some say, Foxy & friends don't admit people to hospital for LOLs.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Actually there is loads of land available in cities. The problem is the cost of upgrading infrastructure, far easier to scatter estates across farmland and treat the infrastructure needs as somebody else's problem. One area I know is the Old Kent Road where there is massive potential for housing development, but it needs a £3bn infrastructure project (Bakerloo line extension) to unlock it. That won't happen because the government hates London.
is the land worth x times £3bn - if not then the project isn't worth doing.
London's problem for the next X years is that because the calculations previously used to justify investment were biased towards London the rest of the country has a lot of historic investment that they need to catch up on.
And the local councils have now worked out what is required to justify investment outside of London. One thing Ben Houchen has been very good at around here is coming up with fully costed proposals with valid assumptions and plausible outcomes which means central Government has great difficulty turning down the investment.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
I admire your willingness to stand up for your views Philip, especially as you do it on free market grounds but the simple fact is that house builders have a massive incentive to talk up the need for the most homes possible and which need to be built in the way that suits them the most ie profits, and the Government has neither the inclination nor the skills to suggest alternatives. It’s also the case that different areas will have different requirements and needs.
Companies only make a profit if they're meeting a demand their customers want and are willing to pay for.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Don't increase the population by a sixth then. The biggest environment issue worldwide by far is human over-population. It astonishes me that we have no target in this country for population numbers.
A lot of cracks appearing which should start giving SKS a foothold. The next few months should give us an idea whether he has the imagination and ability to take Labour forward.
Won't need one. Just read that Dido Harding is going to clear the NHS of foreigners if she gets the job which I hear she will (nod nod wink wink ....know what I mean?)
Even Harry Kane can score into an empty net
COVID will have an effect on the composition of NHS staff.
For many years, the UK deliberately trained less doctors and nurses than the NHS requires - by restricting university courses.
Because of the exam/university entrance comedy, some university courses have increased in size by 25% or more. Which means in a few years time, a rather larger cohort of UK doctors and nurses.
The universities are already begging the government to keep the increased size of courses - they are getting worried about the cost/benefit calculations for many degree subjects.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Don't increase the population by a sixth then. The biggest environment issue worldwide by far is human over-population. It astonishes me that we have no target in this country for population numbers.
Bit late to do that now - most of the people are already here.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Don't increase the population by a sixth then. The biggest environment issue worldwide by far is human over-population. It astonishes me that we have no target in this country for population numbers.
Too late for that. Its happened.
I don't know how you voted when it came to free movement etc, but unless we're going to start deporting people they're already here - and many people who come originally as a young person willing to live in a small flat in the city grow up, get married, have children and want to settle down somewhere with a garden.
That requires green land, not high rises in a city.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Actually there is loads of land available in cities. The problem is the cost of upgrading infrastructure, far easier to scatter estates across farmland and treat the infrastructure needs as somebody else's problem. One area I know is the Old Kent Road where there is massive potential for housing development, but it needs a £3bn infrastructure project (Bakerloo line extension) to unlock it. That won't happen because the government hates London.
is the land worth x times £3bn - if not then the project isn't worth doing.
London's problem for the next X years is that because the calculations previously used to justify investment were biased towards London the rest of the country has a lot of historic investment that they need to catch up on.
And the local councils have now worked out what is required to justify investment outside of London. One thing Ben Houchen has been very good at around here is coming up with fully costed proposals with valid assumptions and plausible outcomes which means central Government has great difficulty turning down the investment.
Another issue is that the government has finally over turned the issue of projects being solely looked at on their crude ecumenic return - which meant that, since London property is so ridiculously expensive, that more and more investment was being funnelled into London. Which in turn caused a spiral of increasing property prices.
I live in London and it was getting ridiculous.
£3 billion to make some land usable for housing is a lot. What can £3 billion get you elsewhere in the country?
The curves are basically identical, everywhere. As you’d expect. Delta is so much more virulent, it dominates very quickly. It will be the same worldwide
It this necessarily as bad as it seems? Delta is taking a much higher share of new infections but wouldn't much of these these likely to have been new infections anyway, i.e. under a previous iteration of the virus?
It’s bad because Delta is more transmissible = more people in hospital, quicker. There is also some debated evidence that it is nastier once you get it, and that it partly evades the vaccines - certainly after just one dose
The answer is to double jab the world ASAP
If it "escapes" double vaccination, you basically get a cold so far as I can tell. Now there still seems some slight increased risk for the very old and unhealthy - but you can't structure society around the very infirm and refuseniks
Ahem.
Contrary to what some say, Foxy & friends don't admit people to hospital for LOLs.
The Telegraph sees Rishi pondering pensions reform.
Three different reforms to the way in which pension contributions are taxed are being considered amid pressure on the public finances, according to well-placed Whitehall sources.
One of the ideas being examined is reducing the pensions lifetime allowance from a little above £1 million to £800,000 or £900,000, lowering the point above which extra tax charges kick in.
Another would see individuals contributing to pensions getting the same rate of tax relief, meaning higher-rate taxpayers lose out, while a third is new taxation on employer contributions.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
I can’t speak for other cities. But most of London is swathed in very poor quality two or three storey Victorian or Georgian terraced housing. Single brick but with shallow foundations and cement mortar. Which makes it prone to subsidence and damp, and expensive to heat. Most of it has been subject to very poor conversion, with no sound proofing, to slice and dice it into ever smaller units.
If you want brownfield, it’s bloody everywhere. The state should compulsory purchase whole streets and rebuild it all a couple of stories higher and to modern standards, with an eye on curing infrastructure pinch points in the mix.
You want to knock down London’s Georgian and Victorian housing? A wealth of period architecture which most cities would kill for? Good luck with that
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
This has to be a part of the solution. The problem is that developers don't like building those sorts of homes as less profitable - and many then clad them in E-Z-Burn cladding. So many town centres are dying due to the lack of £ to sustain retail businesses.
Property owners seem happy to leave premises shuttered long term and hold them as book assets rather than actually have the shop open as a shop. So do a compulsory purchase, bulldoze the dross and repopulate towns.
The curves are basically identical, everywhere. As you’d expect. Delta is so much more virulent, it dominates very quickly. It will be the same worldwide
It this necessarily as bad as it seems? Delta is taking a much higher share of new infections but wouldn't much of these these likely to have been new infections anyway, i.e. under a previous iteration of the virus?
It’s bad because Delta is more transmissible = more people in hospital, quicker. There is also some debated evidence that it is nastier once you get it, and that it partly evades the vaccines - certainly after just one dose
The answer is to double jab the world ASAP
If it "escapes" double vaccination, you basically get a cold so far as I can tell. Now there still seems some slight increased risk for the very old and unhealthy - but you can't structure society around the very infirm and refuseniks
Ahem.
Contrary to what some say, Foxy & friends don't admit people to hospital for LOLs.
That chart doesn't contradict me
The point is, sadly, that the vaccinations haven't reduced COVID to the status of it's cousins - the cold. I wish it had.
Scotland has voted five times since the indyref. A reminder of the results: (2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority) 2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority 2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
In 2021 there was both a majority of votes cast for Independence parties and majority of MSPs elected on that platform. On what planet was this a "Unionist Majority"?
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Apologies for boring you by expressing my opinion. Have you ever worked at Canary Wharf? I have. It is a depressing, soulless place. What I found was that I could never get my bearings. Now admittedly I have no sense of direction. But I think the problem with the Wharf is that everywhere basically looks the same. And the tall buildings block out the light, so the subconscious signals from the direction of the sunlight aren't there either. These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
You didn't work for Ogilvy's did you? I liked it as a visitor but the people I worked for there used to do all in their power to arrange our meetings in Soho because they didn't.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Apologies for boring you by expressing my opinion. Have you ever worked at Canary Wharf? I have. It is a depressing, soulless place. What I found was that I could never get my bearings. Now admittedly I have no sense of direction. But I think the problem with the Wharf is that everywhere basically looks the same. And the tall buildings block out the light, so the subconscious signals from the direction of the sunlight aren't there either. These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
When Docklands was a big flat nothing and Thatcher proposed the Docklands Development Corp, lefties mocked
When she laid the first brick, at Canary Wharf, lefties chortled, satirically
When they finished the first phase - 1 Canada Square - lefties yelled ‘there’s no infrastructure, it’s pointless’
When the Tories installed infrastructure - the DLR, Limehouse Cut - lefties sneered and said ‘the road is too expensive’
When the government extended the Jubilee Line, the left sniffed and said ‘it’s just finance, no one will live there’
Now, when developers build shops, restaurants, bars, museums, hotels, and thousands of apartments, the left says ‘oh it’s so soulless, and I can’t find my way around because it’s all new and I’m a feckin idiot’
And so the dance continues
You left out the initial developers going bust, and empty tower blocks sold off-plan to foreign investors.
I love Canary Wharf but think they missed a trick by not colour-coding the below-ground shopping streets to aid navigation.
Also, there are some surprisingly shonky newly-built flats in Greenwich. You'd have thought, given the view across the river and walking distance to Canary Wharf, they'd be bigger and better (and more expensive).
Scotland has voted five times since the indyref. A reminder of the results: (2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority) 2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority 2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
In 2021 there was both a majority of votes cast for Independence parties and majority of MSPs elected on that platform. On what planet was this a "Unionist Majority"?
2015 makes me laugh.
Not only did the SNP win 56 out of 59 seats they also got 49.97% of the vote. 1.3% of the vote also went to the pro-Independence Greens. So how do you get a Unionist majority out of that?
Scotland has voted five times since the indyref. A reminder of the results: (2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority) 2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority 2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
In 2021 there was both a majority of votes cast for Independence parties and majority of MSPs elected on that platform. On what planet was this a "Unionist Majority"?
The type of nonsense currently being peddled by the increasingly desperate Unionists is a sign that they have chosen the Castilian path: authoritarianism and repression. Very un-English. It’s just not cricket.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
I can’t speak for other cities. But most of London is swathed in very poor quality two or three storey Victorian or Georgian terraced housing. Single brick but with shallow foundations and cement mortar. Which makes it prone to subsidence and damp, and expensive to heat. Most of it has been subject to very poor conversion, with no sound proofing, to slice and dice it into ever smaller units.
If you want brownfield, it’s bloody everywhere. The state should compulsory purchase whole streets and rebuild it all a couple of stories higher and to modern standards, with an eye on curing infrastructure pinch points in the mix.
You want to knock down London’s Georgian and Victorian housing? A wealth of period architecture which most cities would kill for? Good luck with that
One of the biggest businesses in the London building trade is de-converting Georgian and Victorian houses from flats (usually crap) to houses. This has been going on for years.
London is full of projects past, present and future to build high rise flats. In fact there is generally considered to be an oversupply of 1/2 bed shoeboxes in the sky. The prices are only held by the developers not releasing units for sale.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
I can’t speak for other cities. But most of London is swathed in very poor quality two or three storey Victorian or Georgian terraced housing. Single brick but with shallow foundations and cement mortar. Which makes it prone to subsidence and damp, and expensive to heat. Most of it has been subject to very poor conversion, with no sound proofing, to slice and dice it into ever smaller units.
If you want brownfield, it’s bloody everywhere. The state should compulsory purchase whole streets and rebuild it all a couple of stories higher and to modern standards, with an eye on curing infrastructure pinch points in the mix.
You want to knock down London’s Georgian and Victorian housing? A wealth of period architecture which most cities would kill for? Good luck with that
Perhaps start with Bolton Gardens which is very nearly in South London anyway.
Scotland has voted five times since the indyref. A reminder of the results: (2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority) 2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority 2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority 2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
You are basically arguing that the current Conservative government at Westminster is illegitimate, as it only got 42% of the vote.
I'm not. The Green-supported minority SNP government in Scotland is legitimate, and it's legitimate for it to request a section 30 order. If a majority in the election had voted for candidates who promised separation, or even just a referendum rerun, then the Tory government would be trampling on the wishes of the people of Scotland if it denied the request. But if my auntie were my uncle...
Staying in the Union or becoming independent should only be decided by referendum. That makes it legitimate for the British government to consider expressions of support for the competing options that have been forthcoming from the population in real votes, and to do so on the basis of full OPOV, the principle that would be used in a referendum regardless of not being used at Holyrood or Westminster. Six elections can be looked at. Their results were all pro-Union.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Actually there is loads of land available in cities. The problem is the cost of upgrading infrastructure, far easier to scatter estates across farmland and treat the infrastructure needs as somebody else's problem. One area I know is the Old Kent Road where there is massive potential for housing development, but it needs a £3bn infrastructure project (Bakerloo line extension) to unlock it. That won't happen because the government hates London.
is the land worth x times £3bn - if not then the project isn't worth doing.
London's problem for the next X years is that because the calculations previously used to justify investment were biased towards London the rest of the country has a lot of historic investment that they need to catch up on.
And the local councils have now worked out what is required to justify investment outside of London. One thing Ben Houchen has been very good at around here is coming up with fully costed proposals with valid assumptions and plausible outcomes which means central Government has great difficulty turning down the investment.
I don't deny that spending has been skewed towards London, and that the rest of the country has vast unmet infrastructure needs too. But parts of London have quite poor infrastructure - here in SE London there is a desperate need for a river crossing between the Blackwall Tunnel and Dartford (cancelled by BJ when he was London mayor) for instance. Plus the afore-mentioned Bakerloo Line extension, which would unlock the huge housing potential down the Old Kent Road. The impression the government gives is that it simply sees London taxpayers as a cash-cow, and that "Levelling Up" actually means Levelling Down for Londoners.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Apologies for boring you by expressing my opinion. Have you ever worked at Canary Wharf? I have. It is a depressing, soulless place. What I found was that I could never get my bearings. Now admittedly I have no sense of direction. But I think the problem with the Wharf is that everywhere basically looks the same. And the tall buildings block out the light, so the subconscious signals from the direction of the sunlight aren't there either. These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
When Docklands was a big flat nothing and Thatcher proposed the Docklands Development Corp, lefties mocked
When she laid the first brick, at Canary Wharf, lefties chortled, satirically
When they finished the first phase - 1 Canada Square - lefties yelled ‘there’s no infrastructure, it’s pointless’
When the Tories installed infrastructure - the DLR, Limehouse Cut - lefties sneered and said ‘the road is too expensive’
When the government extended the Jubilee Line, the left sniffed and said ‘it’s just finance, no one will live there’
Now, when developers build shops, restaurants, bars, museums, hotels, and thousands of apartments, the left says ‘oh it’s so soulless, and I can’t find my way around because it’s all new and I’m a feckin idiot’
And so the dance continues
This shows the length of time required for regeneration. It takes a good 30 years for it to be effective.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
This has to be a part of the solution. The problem is that developers don't like building those sorts of homes as less profitable - and many then clad them in E-Z-Burn cladding. So many town centres are dying due to the lack of £ to sustain retail businesses.
Property owners seem happy to leave premises shuttered long term and hold them as book assets rather than actually have the shop open as a shop. So do a compulsory purchase, bulldoze the dross and repopulate towns.
In a small town in N Essex there is a big empty shop..... was, I think, three units, which appears unsaleable or unlet-able. Been on the market about 5 years now, and is a blight on what could be the main shopping street. Further up the street is what used to be a small clothing factory, now inactive and empty. Both are steadily deteriorating and indeed the owners of one have been forced to put wire along the gutters to stop slates falling off the roof. Compulsory purchase, or indeed simply requisition, would be a damn good thing.
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Infrastructure support is critical. Far too many housing developments are steamrollered through with no additional infrastructure. Councils often don't have the cash to build new roads or there is simply nowhere to put them.
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
We have recently had 68 new houses in our village. The school was full, the lanes haven't been widened (they are Devon Banks, so have to be protected), there are generally two cars at each of these new houses, putting more pressure on the pot-holed roads - and this is a small development compared to what they are doing above Dartmouth.
And this is why we get NIMBYism - new developments especially under the NPPF are a direct threat to the fabric of many communities as they aren't designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
The term should be NIABY not NIMBY. Not In Anyone's Back Yard.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
So where should people live then?
Use the brown field site areas and disused parts of the town centres, rather than having mile upon mile of charity shops. This would mean filling places in primary schools and health centres already there rather than saying you'll build a school but never do.
There aren't sufficient brownfield sites in the country. The countries population has increased by a sixth in a generation, where do you think all this mythical brownfield comes from? 🤦♂️
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Don't increase the population by a sixth then. The biggest environment issue worldwide by far is human over-population. It astonishes me that we have no target in this country for population numbers.
Too late for that. Its happened.
I don't know how you voted when it came to free movement etc, but unless we're going to start deporting people they're already here - and many people who come originally as a young person willing to live in a small flat in the city grow up, get married, have children and want to settle down somewhere with a garden.
That requires green land, not high rises in a city.
Not in other countries. Make the towns and cities places where people want to live. Municipal parks, grand buildings, open spaces, community facilities. All built instinctively in the late Victorian period onwards. Try justifying using a few acres of urban land for a park now - our attitudes are all wrong.
My old town of Stockton - despite being under siege by housing developments - at least has the right idea with the town centre. The council has bought both the hideous 1970s shopping centre and the open plan half empty shopping street and half the empty buildings on the high street.
They are busy bulldozing unloved unwanted buildings, and the Castlegate shopping centre is next. What will replace it? A riverside park. That is the way forward - make towns a place that people actually want to be. Your very own shitbox Barratt starter home in the suburbs with no floor space and a tiny garden where turf gets overlaid onto rubble is not utopia.
I think the problem is that developers like to build new estates because they can hide very high-end larger expensive properties and make a fortune from them, rather than be limited to the many brownfield areas where if they are lucky to find space for a half dozen smaller townhouses or flats of more modest prices. I suppose builders and developers need to make their bribe money back from somewhere eh Mr Jenrick? Sadly the priorities of this government are oiling palms rather than housing the youth, (unless they were educated at Eton, the College not Slough and Eton Academy).
Talking of planning, or the lack of it, look at this very recent photo of Docklands in London. It looks like a spruced-up version of classic Chicago, or like a western Hong Kong - minus the Chinese tanks. It looks amazing
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
The development of Docklands also required significant infrastructure investment, including the DLR and Jubilee line extension, to make it work. And now Crossrail - because the existing infrastructure is now creaking at the seams (certainly pre-pandemic, almost certainly afterwards, too). Similarly there is huge potential for housing and other development (for over 100k people IIRC) down the Old Kent Road, but it's only feasible if the infrastructure is put in place (Bakerloo line extension). I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
Lefties have been decrying Docklands since Thatcher laid the first brick. And you’re still at it. Yawn
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
Apologies for boring you by expressing my opinion. Have you ever worked at Canary Wharf? I have. It is a depressing, soulless place. What I found was that I could never get my bearings. Now admittedly I have no sense of direction. But I think the problem with the Wharf is that everywhere basically looks the same. And the tall buildings block out the light, so the subconscious signals from the direction of the sunlight aren't there either. These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
When Docklands was a big flat nothing and Thatcher proposed the Docklands Development Corp, lefties mocked
When she laid the first brick, at Canary Wharf, lefties chortled, satirically
When they finished the first phase - 1 Canada Square - lefties yelled ‘there’s no infrastructure, it’s pointless’
When the Tories installed infrastructure - the DLR, Limehouse Cut - lefties sneered and said ‘the road is too expensive’
When the government extended the Jubilee Line, the left sniffed and said ‘it’s just finance, no one will live there’
Now, when developers build shops, restaurants, bars, museums, hotels, and thousands of apartments, the left says ‘oh it’s so soulless, and I can’t find my way around because it’s all new and I’m a feckin idiot’
And so the dance continues
You have a really powerful imagination. Have you ever thought about becoming a writer?
Comments
I can remember when this was all total dereliction, in the early 80s. Then Thatcher proposed ‘some redevelopment’, letting capitalism do its thing. Everyone chortled in derision. And here we are
McLaren looking good for third again, but they need to be able to take advantage of the major rule changes next season.
https://twitter.com/valentinapop/status/1406863259446255616?s=20
That and trivial proportions of sequencing.....
From 1997 to 2018 the population of Scotland increased by 6%
From 1997 to 2018 the population of England increased by 15%
Your mileage may vary from location to location of course, but overall there's a much bigger increase in pressures in England, that requires much more building as a result.
And yeah, the team did screw up the strategy.
Bottas did go missing at Baku (and wherever he was racing against Russell) but he's been ill-served by the team. Wolff trying to blame him for the nut issue, initially, was not impressive.
I should also add that Docklands is a horrible soulless place, but clearly some people like living there (or at least owning property there) so each to their own.
"Though Zayd said Galloway wasn't "perfect", he said the veteran Scot's policies were better than Labour's in terms of promising to invest in the local community and his support for the Palestinians."
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-batley-spen-by-election-palestine-issue-labour-dealbreaker
Developments go through where it is noted that there is insufficient access but the developers win anyway, yet when a road scheme is then tried to be added the planning process is far more stringent and often doesn't get approved.
https://twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1406867887655211009
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93166
...There's also the fact that if a vaccine does have a side effect, it will likely show up in the first 6 to 8 weeks of use, Offit said.
"Of all the vaccines we use, in infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, none of them have any long-term effects," Schaffner said. "No vaccine has shown side effects 2 to 5 years later. That doesn't exist because there's no biological reason for it."
Schaffner said the argument could also be made that "we know vastly more about mRNA vaccines than we do about Novavax. Novavax is new whereas we've given the mRNA vaccines to 170 million people in the U.S. alone. We may know more about the safety there than we do about Novavax."
Wen said it's still important to emphasize the good safety record of the vaccines while still taking patient preference into account.
"I have no concerns about the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines," Wen told MedPage Today. "That said, there are individuals who may have these concerns, and if another vaccine is what it takes to get them vaccinated, I think we should do everything we can to dispel misinformation while increasing options."...
...Schaffner added that primary care physicians, who often have existing close relationships with their patients, have a big role to play in addressing remaining hesitancy.
"We have to respect why they feel that way and try to find out what is causing it," he said. "We never disrespect the person who is hesitant. We never dismiss them or belittle them. When they realize we will take their concerns seriously, they'll tell us what their issue is. Then we'll say, that's pretty common, I've heard that before, and their anxiety is eased."...
A larger point about London. Yesterday, driving back into the city after a week away, I got the first sense of optimism about the capital, after 18 months of gloom
It wasn’t the weather. It was cool and grey. It was something else in the air.
I wonder if the city is getting physically younger. A lot of middle aged and older people have decamped to the shires.
The answer is to double jab the world ASAP
Vote within the hour.
How many new houses are being built with a single parking space? A driveway and a garage is not "two parking spaces" unless the car in the garage can be transported through the one blocking it on the drive. How many have a drive barely wide enough for a modern car?
You end up with developments where from day 1 they are littered with cars, the roads nearby were already full and as you say there is no local school places which forces parents to drive their kids across town.
When you have a largely unregulated developers charter thanks for your sizeable donation to the Conservative Party this is what you get. If the Tories don't wake up and listen to concerns they will struggle against a LD operation targeting planning directly.
Too often an automatic just say no mentality has set in and fixing one alone isn't sufficient.
We in our village got accused of Nimbyism when we resisted being dragged into the boundary of the nearest large town by the insertion of new developments in the space between. The integrity of the nation's most beautiful and historic areas must be defended against these building company vandals. That applies all across the country, not just the village in which you live. NIABY. Looking after nature and aesthetics are all that matter in the end.
I don't think the CP realise what they are proposing. They have drunk the need-more-houses-on-greenbelt coolaid. I would expect this of the LP but not the CP. The LibDems could re-launch themselves off the back of this one issue alone.
Namely, “I don’t want there to be a Cold War with China, so I will ignore that they have been waging one (successfully) for years.”
(2014 - Indyref - Unionist majority)
2015 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority
2016 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
2017 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority
2019 - British GE, result in Scotland: Unionist majority
2021 - Scottish GE: Unionist majority
Remind me where Donald "Election Winner" Trump's mother was from?
SNP "true belief" is right up Norman Vincent Peale's street. You lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost - six times in seven years.
Woking to Waterloo ticket options:
type - cost - cost per day - assumed days
annual - £3,528.00 - £14.70 - 240 (travel as much as you like in a year)
monthly - £4,064.00 - £16.93 - 240 (travel as much as you like in a calendar month)
flexi - £164.80 - £20.60 - 8 (travel any 8 days with no time restrictions in a 28 day period)
anytime - £23.50 - £23.50 - 1
off-peak - £19.60 - £19.60 - 1 (arrive at WAT after 10:00)
super off-peak - £15.40 - £15.40 - 1 (arrive at WAT after 12:00 and cannot return between 16:00 and 19:00)
Obviously if you were buying monthlies you would get a bit better value because you wouldn't have to renew immediately.
I don't think the discount on the flexit ticket is quite enough to be honest. You will have to be confident that you will use them all in 28 days. I suspect there will be a lot more people taking the off-peak option, which is actually cheaper than the flexi ticket. Given that commuting is likely to become more about going in for specific purposes, I can see later commuting making more sense for people.
Three different reforms to the way in which pension contributions are taxed are being considered amid pressure on the public finances, according to well-placed Whitehall sources.
One of the ideas being examined is reducing the pensions lifetime allowance from a little above £1 million to £800,000 or £900,000, lowering the point above which extra tax charges kick in.
Another would see individuals contributing to pensions getting the same rate of tax relief, meaning higher-rate taxpayers lose out, while a third is new taxation on employer contributions.
"Our job is to keep people out of poverty, not to enrich the middle classes," said a senior government source familiar with the proposals, which are still at the exploratory stage.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/20/pensions-raid-pay-covid-pandemic/ (£££)
The Telegraph goes on to suggest differences between the Treasury and Downing Street. (Have they spoken to Michael Gove?)
Only a cynic would suggest the above proposals (if that is what they are) have been leaked in order to be shot down.
Otherwise I'm really struggling to see how they were all Unionist majorities in the results.
Now there still seems some slight increased risk for the very old and unhealthy - but you can't structure society around the very infirm and refuseniks
You can't increase the population by a sixth without realistically increasing the land available by a sixth too.
Even Harry Kane can score into an empty net
These observations are not political in nature - I think the redevelopment of docklands has overall been a good thing, although transport infrastructure has always lagged and the displacement and exclusion of the local population has been pretty bad too. So please don't try to open a new front in the culture war on this - that really would be yawn-inducing.
If you are ever there (anyone) - check out the garden they built on top of the Cross Rail station. Due to a clever usage of cover (while leaving it open air) it is worth a visit and a place to sit and enjoy greenery the year round.
He didn't, of course.
There were at least three miscalculations by the Merc strategists during the race.
If you want brownfield, it’s bloody everywhere. The state should compulsory purchase whole streets and rebuild it all a couple of stories higher and to modern standards, with an eye on curing infrastructure pinch points in the mix.
When she laid the first brick, at Canary Wharf, lefties chortled, satirically
When they finished the first phase - 1 Canada Square - lefties yelled ‘there’s no infrastructure, it’s pointless’
When the Tories installed infrastructure - the DLR, Limehouse Cut - lefties sneered and said ‘the road is too expensive’
When the government extended the Jubilee Line, the left sniffed and said ‘it’s just finance, no one will live there’
Now, when developers build shops, restaurants, bars, museums, hotels, and thousands of apartments, the left says ‘oh it’s so soulless, and I can’t find my way around because it’s all new and I’m a feckin idiot’
And so the dance continues
Contrary to what some say, Foxy & friends don't admit people to hospital for LOLs.
London's problem for the next X years is that because the calculations previously used to justify investment were biased towards London the rest of the country has a lot of historic investment that they need to catch up on.
And the local councils have now worked out what is required to justify investment outside of London. One thing Ben Houchen has been very good at around here is coming up with fully costed proposals with valid assumptions and plausible outcomes which means central Government has great difficulty turning down the investment.
For many years, the UK deliberately trained less doctors and nurses than the NHS requires - by restricting university courses.
Because of the exam/university entrance comedy, some university courses have increased in size by 25% or more. Which means in a few years time, a rather larger cohort of UK doctors and nurses.
The universities are already begging the government to keep the increased size of courses - they are getting worried about the cost/benefit calculations for many degree subjects.
I don't know how you voted when it came to free movement etc, but unless we're going to start deporting people they're already here - and many people who come originally as a young person willing to live in a small flat in the city grow up, get married, have children and want to settle down somewhere with a garden.
That requires green land, not high rises in a city.
I live in London and it was getting ridiculous.
£3 billion to make some land usable for housing is a lot. What can £3 billion get you elsewhere in the country?
Support motion of No Confidence: 181
Oppose motion: 109
Abstentions: 51
Absentees: 8
This is the first time a Swedish PM has ever lost a vote of no confidence.
Property owners seem happy to leave premises shuttered long term and hold them as book assets rather than actually have the shop open as a shop. So do a compulsory purchase, bulldoze the dross and repopulate towns.
I love Canary Wharf but think they missed a trick by not colour-coding the below-ground shopping streets to aid navigation.
Also, there are some surprisingly shonky newly-built flats in Greenwich. You'd have thought, given the view across the river and walking distance to Canary Wharf, they'd be bigger and better (and more expensive).
Not only did the SNP win 56 out of 59 seats they also got 49.97% of the vote. 1.3% of the vote also went to the pro-Independence Greens. So how do you get a Unionist majority out of that?
London is full of projects past, present and future to build high rise flats. In fact there is generally considered to be an oversupply of 1/2 bed shoeboxes in the sky. The prices are only held by the developers not releasing units for sale.
Staying in the Union or becoming independent should only be decided by referendum. That makes it legitimate for the British government to consider expressions of support for the competing options that have been forthcoming from the population in real votes, and to do so on the basis of full OPOV, the principle that would be used in a referendum regardless of not being used at Holyrood or Westminster. Six elections can be looked at. Their results were all pro-Union.
Both are steadily deteriorating and indeed the owners of one have been forced to put wire along the gutters to stop slates falling off the roof.
Compulsory purchase, or indeed simply requisition, would be a damn good thing.
My old town of Stockton - despite being under siege by housing developments - at least has the right idea with the town centre. The council has bought both the hideous 1970s shopping centre and the open plan half empty shopping street and half the empty buildings on the high street.
They are busy bulldozing unloved unwanted buildings, and the Castlegate shopping centre is next. What will replace it? A riverside park. That is the way forward - make towns a place that people actually want to be. Your very own shitbox Barratt starter home in the suburbs with no floor space and a tiny garden where turf gets overlaid onto rubble is not utopia.