Light the beacons of Gondor, Gavin Williamson may have just come up with a competent and popular pol

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

There is an issue with the wrong sort. One and two bed flats are attractive to BTL investors and developers will prefer them to family homes even in areas, like my old patch in east london, where there is a critical shortage of properties suitable for larger families. By making more units out of the piece of land I expect they are more profitable, yet fall short of meeting local housing need in the round.

If there were no demand for flats then presumably nobody would let them and BTL investors would lose their shirts buying them.

Also its worth noting that the share of BTL ownership in the country peaked a few years ago and is not going up anymore, so presumably the vast majority of developments are primarily not going to BTL investors.

No_Offence_Alan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

Yes. We're building too many houses. Of the wrong sort. In the wrong places. People aren't going to reward the Tories for the endless new houses swamping their towns. With the NPPF the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses...

If these houses are of the wrong sort and in the wrong places, why are people moving into them?

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

There is an issue with the wrong sort. One and two bed flats are attractive to BTL investors and developers will prefer them to family homes even in areas, like my old patch in east london, where there is a critical shortage of properties suitable for larger families. By making more units out of the piece of land I expect they are more profitable, yet fall short of meeting local housing need in the round.

If there were no demand for flats then presumably nobody would let them and BTL investors would lose their shirts buying them.

Also its worth noting that the share of BTL ownership in the country peaked a few years ago and is not going up anymore, so presumably the vast majority of developments are primarily not going to BTL investors.

We're not going to agree on this. All I am saying is that the people back in Stockton most outraged by planning appeals won by developers are all Tories. When these homes get thrown up in places that often the locals the council and the MP object to, how does this translate to electoral gain for the Tories as suggested? They used to be the people leading the objections to endless development and for sensible electoral reasons.

Black_Rook said:

Gardenwalker said:

On the topic of the last thread, it seems almost anything can be explained by the demographics.

The Tories have captured the elderly vote by protecting their income, delivering them Brexit, and inflating their assets.

There have never been more old people; *and* they are more likely to vote. You can’t win England without them. The blue wall is even more, proportionally, full of old people than the South East.

That policies (like Brexit) designed for elderly, no-longer-productive voters will end up bankrupting the country and immiserating the young is of course infuriating - but electoral success is impossible without a willingness to feather-bed this selfish generation.

Time to trot out my go-to piece of research on this topic again:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Allowing for turnout, pensioners are about a third of the electorate and the over 55s an entire half, and the proportions get greater with every passing year. We are a gerontocracy, and will be for some decades to come.

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

There is an issue with the wrong sort. One and two bed flats are attractive to BTL investors and developers will prefer them to family homes even in areas, like my old patch in east london, where there is a critical shortage of properties suitable for larger families. By making more units out of the piece of land I expect they are more profitable, yet fall short of meeting local housing need in the round.

If there were no demand for flats then presumably nobody would let them and BTL investors would lose their shirts buying them.

Also its worth noting that the share of BTL ownership in the country peaked a few years ago and is not going up anymore, so presumably the vast majority of developments are primarily not going to BTL investors.

Assuming markets work, perhaps. But the area between Vauxhall and Battersea has been covered in developers’ new build flats, and anecdotal reports suggest that they are struggling to shift them. And that many which have been sold have gone to absentee Chinese and Russian buyers who leave them empty. Hardly helping with housing need.

RochdalePioneers said:

Happily we're back to discussing something sensible (the crap state of housing policy) as opposed to something truly terrifying (the idea of Gavin Williamson as PM).

Malmesbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

Yes. We're building too many houses. Of the wrong sort. In the wrong places. People aren't going to reward the Tories for the endless new houses swamping their towns. With the NPPF the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses...

If these houses are of the wrong sort and in the wrong places, why are people moving into them?

They are in the wrong places because they are built as commuter dormitory estates for jobs that are many miles away. Rather than forcing developers to redevelop brown field sites they are letting them build hundreds of thousands of houses on green field sites and then expecting people to commute long distances to work in cities. It hollows out the urban landscape whilst carpeting the rural landscape in new housing.

Changing the planning laws to make it easier for developers to force through greenfield development whilst ignoring large areas of brownfield redevelopment is idiocy.

Nor is this helped by the fact that developers are sitting on over 1 million plots with full (600,000) or outline (480,000) planning permission.

Where are these brownfield sites that no-one is building on?

Northern_Al said:

Gardenwalker said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

There is an issue with the wrong sort. One and two bed flats are attractive to BTL investors and developers will prefer them to family homes even in areas, like my old patch in east london, where there is a critical shortage of properties suitable for larger families. By making more units out of the piece of land I expect they are more profitable, yet fall short of meeting local housing need in the round.

If there were no demand for flats then presumably nobody would let them and BTL investors would lose their shirts buying them.

Also its worth noting that the share of BTL ownership in the country peaked a few years ago and is not going up anymore, so presumably the vast majority of developments are primarily not going to BTL investors.

Assuming markets work, perhaps. But the area between Vauxhall and Battersea has been covered in developers’ new build flats, and anecdotal reports suggest that they are struggling to shift them. And that many which have been sold have gone to absentee Chinese and Russian buyers who leave them empty. Hardly helping with housing need.

Could the struggle to sell Vauxhall/Battersea flats have anything to do with the fact that they seem to comprise the ugliest new housing stock in the entire country?

It’s like someone looked at Dubai and asked themselves whether they could make a cheaper and nastier version.

(See also, Stratford).

That’s a failure of planning (and of design).

I think it might also be something to do with the prices. See Nine Elms (Battersea), for example:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Nine-Elms.html

A mere £15 million for the second one on the list.

Malmesbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

Yes. We're building too many houses. Of the wrong sort. In the wrong places. People aren't going to reward the Tories for the endless new houses swamping their towns. With the NPPF the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses...

If these houses are of the wrong sort and in the wrong places, why are people moving into them?

They are in the wrong places because they are built as commuter dormitory estates for jobs that are many miles away. Rather than forcing developers to redevelop brown field sites they are letting them build hundreds of thousands of houses on green field sites and then expecting people to commute long distances to work in cities. It hollows out the urban landscape whilst carpeting the rural landscape in new housing.

Changing the planning laws to make it easier for developers to force through greenfield development whilst ignoring large areas of brownfield redevelopment is idiocy.

Nor is this helped by the fact that developers are sitting on over 1 million plots with full (600,000) or outline (480,000) planning permission.

Where are these brownfield sites that no-one is building on?

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

"Trending in United Kingdom
#DismantlingWhiteness"

https://twitter.com/search?q=#DismantlingWhiteness

"Al Barrett Blue heart
@hodgehillvicar
One more time for those who might have missed it: #DismantlingWhiteness has nothing to do with hating white people (or white people hating ourselves). And everything to do with dismantling harmful ways of being in & seeing the world that centre some and marginalise others."

Fuck this shit

Let the Left die. They seem determined to hurl themselves off an ideological cliff, I fail to see why we should prevent this

Topic is phones in schools.

Gardenwalker said:

The other issue, which I’m sure is well-rehearsed, is that volume builders dominate new development in a way unheard of in most countries.

The result is shite, bad-quality, cookie-cutter “exec” homes using a pattern which has barely changed since about 1982, except that the rooms have got smaller.

Would be interesting to see a study on how these appreciate (or rather, depreciate).

moonshine said:

Malmesbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

Yes. We're building too many houses. Of the wrong sort. In the wrong places. People aren't going to reward the Tories for the endless new houses swamping their towns. With the NPPF the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses...

If these houses are of the wrong sort and in the wrong places, why are people moving into them?

They are in the wrong places because they are built as commuter dormitory estates for jobs that are many miles away. Rather than forcing developers to redevelop brown field sites they are letting them build hundreds of thousands of houses on green field sites and then expecting people to commute long distances to work in cities. It hollows out the urban landscape whilst carpeting the rural landscape in new housing.

Changing the planning laws to make it easier for developers to force through greenfield development whilst ignoring large areas of brownfield redevelopment is idiocy.

Nor is this helped by the fact that developers are sitting on over 1 million plots with full (600,000) or outline (480,000) planning permission.

Where are these brownfield sites that no-one is building on?

The onerous and unpredictable application of environmental certification means it’s very risky to take on a lot of brownfield sites. A case in point is the huge number (and about to exponentially increase) petrol stations. No one wants to go through the equity gamble of maybe in 1-2 years getting certification, without which leverage is impossible. And the oil companies have somehow managed to get away with shuttering the sites without first proving environmental reclamation has been completed.

To build on open countryside is just lazy corrupt politics.

DougSeal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

dixiedean said:

How many schools currently allow mobile phones in the classroom?
Sounds like yet another solution for a problem which doesn't exist.

In my limited experience almost all of them these days.

Most schools have done away with lockers which means there is no where to store phones and most parents insist their kids are able to carry phones too and from school for safety reasons. The upshot is that most schools have no alternative but to allow phones in classrooms although many do stop them being used.

It’s a shame the school can’t just install one of those Israeli gadgets that blocks all the signals

I was just thinking along exactly the same lines but without realising the Israelis had one.

I suppose we could make sure all school classrooms are refitted as Faraday cages.

I thought they had considered it for schools and prisons but found the current technology also managed to block the signal to neighbouring properties?

Floater said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

"Trending in United Kingdom
#DismantlingWhiteness"

https://twitter.com/search?q=#DismantlingWhiteness

"Al Barrett Blue heart
@hodgehillvicar
One more time for those who might have missed it: #DismantlingWhiteness has nothing to do with hating white people (or white people hating ourselves). And everything to do with dismantling harmful ways of being in & seeing the world that centre some and marginalise others."

Fuck this shit

Let the Left die. They seem determined to hurl themselves off an ideological cliff, I fail to see why we should prevent this

Topic is phones in schools.

Typical of the left - Try to shut down debate on topics you don't like.

IanB2 said:

squareroot2 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

"Trending in United Kingdom
#DismantlingWhiteness"

https://twitter.com/search?q=#DismantlingWhiteness

"Al Barrett Blue heart
@hodgehillvicar
One more time for those who might have missed it: #DismantlingWhiteness has nothing to do with hating white people (or white people hating ourselves). And everything to do with dismantling harmful ways of being in & seeing the world that centre some and marginalise others."

Fuck this shit

Let the Left die. They seem determined to hurl themselves off an ideological cliff, I fail to see why we should prevent this

Topic is phones in schools.

There are multiple topics running on any thread.

Nevertheless ‘look how much I’ve had to drink already’ so early on a Saturday night is a topic we could usefully skip.

IanB2 said:

Malmesbury said:

England CFR

First vaccinations this month have almost stopped. No wonder the 45+ folks are having to jostle for appointments.

Malmesbury said:

On the subject of hospital admissions, here is the UK wide R derived from the hospitalisation numbers -



interesting, isn't it?

stodge said:

Evening all

In my part of London, estates of flats are taking shape at Fresh Wharf in Barking and on the site of a former retail park nearby.

It's far too simplistic to describe them as either being for BTL investment or for home ownership because they are both and neither. There is a recognition in this part of the world of the need for a healthy rental sector so the developers are going into the rental game and setting up blocks of flats for rent rather than to buy.

We are also seeing attempts to create "riverside communities" and one of the developers sponsored and ran a local food market at one of the new developments at lunchtime today which was a mixture of street food and hard sell.

There is a growing recognition communities rather than just flats are the answer and what people want.

Are these new estates getting business? Hard to tell at this stage but we all know there's demand out there but whether the cultural and socio-economic impact of the past year means the kind of lifestyle these flats perpetuated and represented is as desired and desirable as it was, remains to be seen.

They remain, however, for all too many people the only realistic housing option.

kinabalu said:

squareroot2 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

"Trending in United Kingdom
#DismantlingWhiteness"

https://twitter.com/search?q=#DismantlingWhiteness

"Al Barrett Blue heart
@hodgehillvicar
One more time for those who might have missed it: #DismantlingWhiteness has nothing to do with hating white people (or white people hating ourselves). And everything to do with dismantling harmful ways of being in & seeing the world that centre some and marginalise others."

Fuck this shit

Let the Left die. They seem determined to hurl themselves off an ideological cliff, I fail to see why we should prevent this

Topic is phones in schools.

There are multiple topics running on any thread.

Yes but I think this one benefits from a lazer focus.

I myself will be commenting on it soon.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ping said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

The problem with housing is that we’re building too many houses?

Or the wrong sort?

Or in the wrong places?

I don’t get the point of your post...?

Yes. We're building too many houses. Of the wrong sort. In the wrong places. People aren't going to reward the Tories for the endless new houses swamping their towns. With the NPPF the only way to stop developers building houses is to let developers build houses...

If these houses are of the wrong sort and in the wrong places, why are people moving into them?

They are in the wrong places because they are built as commuter dormitory estates for jobs that are many miles away. Rather than forcing developers to redevelop brown field sites they are letting them build hundreds of thousands of houses on green field sites and then expecting people to commute long distances to work in cities. It hollows out the urban landscape whilst carpeting the rural landscape in new housing.

Changing the planning laws to make it easier for developers to force through greenfield development whilst ignoring large areas of brownfield redevelopment is idiocy.

Nor is this helped by the fact that developers are sitting on over 1 million plots with full (600,000) or outline (480,000) planning permission.

Where are these brownfield sites that no-one is building on?

Look at any city or large town and you will see them. Nottingham has plenty of them. Even a smaller town like Newark has developments with planning permission for over 300 houses that have not been started more than a decade after planning permission was given. Meanwhile they are building 3,500 new houses on greenfield sites outside the town. And those people certainly won't be working in Newark. It is primarily for commuting into London or Nottingham.

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

ping said:

My solution to the housing problem is the same solution that pretty much every government comes to after a while in power.

Tax it.

Solves many many problems.

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Poundbury is a bit shit. But it is orders of magnitude less shit than the shit box estates the shit developers shit all over the countryside.

An idea - layout a new suburb or whatever. Each house plot is marked out. You can build 1 house on each plot. No more, no less.

Plots for flats - for flats only.

Put in the roads, and the utilities.

Sell the plots. Maybe each side of each street to a different developer.... with quite a few individual ones thrown in.

So any developer will be paying the full cost of loans with panning permission up front. They won't be holding that for 10 years....

Fishing said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Yes I agree. Make Poundbury aesthetic standards mandatory nationwide for planning permission. Then at least some of the NIMBYism would disappear.

another_richard said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

The other issue, which I’m sure is well-rehearsed, is that volume builders dominate new development in a way unheard of in most countries.

The result is shite, bad-quality, cookie-cutter “exec” homes using a pattern which has barely changed since about 1982, except that the rooms have got smaller.

Would be interesting to see a study on how these appreciate (or rather, depreciate).

I agree, but one of the other issues is that UK houses are priced per bedroom rather than per square metre. I would much prefer them being so.

Yes although it would be more appropriate these Brexit days to have price per square foot. I've been looking at houses recently and I make a point of calculating the price per square foot of each property. It can be truly revealing.

One of my favourite statistics is the number of square feet in an average new build residence:

US - 2200
Germany - 1600
Belgium - 1300
Holland - 1300
UK - 800.

Before World War 2, the UK was 1600. We need to get it up there again.

How many people lived in a 1930s new build compared with a 2020s new build ?

squareroot2 said:

another_richard said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Though new estates are already much more varied architecturally than they were in the days of Bob and Thelma Ferris.

They are still ugly. Everyone overlooks everyone else and you have a max 70ft garden boarded by panel fencing... YUK.

squareroot2 said:

another_richard said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Though new estates are already much more varied architecturally than they were in the days of Bob and Thelma Ferris.

They are still ugly. Everyone overlooks everyone else and you have a max 70ft garden boarded by panel fencing... YUK.

another_richard said:

If the new case data here:

https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

is correct then herd immunity is being reached.

squareroot2 said:

kinabalu said:

squareroot2 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

"Trending in United Kingdom
#DismantlingWhiteness"

https://twitter.com/search?q=#DismantlingWhiteness

"Al Barrett Blue heart
@hodgehillvicar
One more time for those who might have missed it: #DismantlingWhiteness has nothing to do with hating white people (or white people hating ourselves). And everything to do with dismantling harmful ways of being in & seeing the world that centre some and marginalise others."

Fuck this shit

Let the Left die. They seem determined to hurl themselves off an ideological cliff, I fail to see why we should prevent this

Topic is phones in schools.

There are multiple topics running on any thread.

Yes but I think this one benefits from a lazer focus.

I myself will be commenting on it soon.

Grammar police. I myself .. tut tut...

ping said:

Fishing said:

another_richard said:

Fishing said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

The other issue, which I’m sure is well-rehearsed, is that volume builders dominate new development in a way unheard of in most countries.

The result is shite, bad-quality, cookie-cutter “exec” homes using a pattern which has barely changed since about 1982, except that the rooms have got smaller.

Would be interesting to see a study on how these appreciate (or rather, depreciate).

I agree, but one of the other issues is that UK houses are priced per bedroom rather than per square metre. I would much prefer them being so.

Yes although it would be more appropriate these Brexit days to have price per square foot. I've been looking at houses recently and I make a point of calculating the price per square foot of each property. It can be truly revealing.

One of my favourite statistics is the number of square feet in an average new build residence:

US - 2200
Germany - 1600
Belgium - 1300
Holland - 1300
UK - 800.

Before World War 2, the UK was 1600. We need to get it up there again.

How many people lived in a 1930s new build compared with a 2020s new build ?

Average household size was about 4 compared to 2.4. But people these days have much higher standards and more stuff. The desire for space hasn't declined - it's the availability of land that has, as shown by the huge increase in the prices of land cleared for building. In 1938, land was 2% of the price of the average new build, now it's 70%. The big winners from the current system are well-connected or lucky landowners.

It’s far less than 70%. Even in central London, max 50%.

Normally more like 33-40%

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

squareroot2 said:

another_richard said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Though new estates are already much more varied architecturally than they were in the days of Bob and Thelma Ferris.

They are still ugly. Everyone overlooks everyone else and you have a max 70ft garden boarded by panel fencing... YUK.

Perhaps you'd prefer if everyone had a detached house with an acre of land.

It would have some benefits but would be somewhat low density living.

It’s neither healthy nor sensible for all the new build to focus on one segment of the market.

Leon said:

moonshine said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Yes I agree. Make Poundbury aesthetic standards mandatory nationwide for planning permission. Then at least some of the NIMBYism would disappear.

Yes. Just fucking do it

Trump, in his odd, mad, uncanny way, sensed this, with his demand that all Federal buildings be "beautiful". He meant neo-classical or maybe Gothic at a push

Thing is, he's right, despite being insane. Architects, for all their ingenuity, have not bettered the Georgian terrace, and/or the higgeldy-piggledy English market town (or French, or Dutch, or German, or Italian, etc etc etc) for furthering human happiness via building style. People with kids want their own front door, on ground level, in a solid building, and a short WALK to the shops and schools. That's it

In a few inner city areas old and young or mad sexy people might be delighted with skyscrapers, and good luck to them. But families need a small defensible space with a garden

Do that, and you have a successful development, and it might even end up handsome and desirable. And you can do it quite densely, as Prince Chuck has done in Poundbury

The thing is, skyscrapers CAN work for families. I’ve lived it. If they’re spacious inside, have a good sized balcony, good common facilities that breed a sense of community. Ample parking. Security at the complex entrance. Etc... It works all over the world but has barely been attempted in the UK, because it’s been more profitable to build commercial property or 1000ft high piggy banks for foreign money launderers.

Complement this with the market town development type you advocate. And then increase every reasonably sized village by 10. And you’re sorted.

My older daughter and her mum have just moved to a quirky bit of north London. It is not fashionable, it is safe and pleasant, it is highly intriguing, because it is a traffic-less road - virtually no cars at all - with every Victorian-built household having a door directly on to the street (two households per house: upstairs and downstairs, explicitly designed this way). Every household has a useful garden. You can walk to all shops and schools

Result? It's incredible. Kids play together on the car-less street unsupervised like it is the 1950s. Football and hopscotch. Because the kids interact so much the neighbours do too. People leave apple pies for each other, like idyllic America in the movies.

It is remarkable. Just get the housing right and people will behave as they want to behave, which is pro-social and neighbourly, nearly everyone likes to feel safe, and surrounded by people they can identify and trust. That's it. It's not subatomic physics

Leon said:

moonshine said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Yes I agree. Make Poundbury aesthetic standards mandatory nationwide for planning permission. Then at least some of the NIMBYism would disappear.

Yes. Just fucking do it

Trump, in his odd, mad, uncanny way, sensed this, with his demand that all Federal buildings be "beautiful". He meant neo-classical or maybe Gothic at a push

Thing is, he's right, despite being insane. Architects, for all their ingenuity, have not bettered the Georgian terrace, and/or the higgeldy-piggledy English market town (or French, or Dutch, or German, or Italian, etc etc etc) for furthering human happiness via building style. People with kids want their own front door, on ground level, in a solid building, and a short WALK to the shops and schools. That's it

In a few inner city areas old and young or mad sexy people might be delighted with skyscrapers, and good luck to them. But families need a small defensible space with a garden

Do that, and you have a successful development, and it might even end up handsome and desirable. And you can do it quite densely, as Prince Chuck has done in Poundbury

The thing is, skyscrapers CAN work for families. I’ve lived it. If they’re spacious inside, have a good sized balcony, good common facilities that breed a sense of community. Ample parking. Security at the complex entrance. Etc... It works all over the world but has barely been attempted in the UK, because it’s been more profitable to build commercial property or 1000ft high piggy banks for foreign money launderers.

Complement this with the market town development type you advocate. And then increase every reasonably sized village by 10. And you’re sorted.

My older daughter and her mum have just moved to a quirky bit of north London. It is not fashionable, it is safe and pleasant, it is highly intriguing, because it is a traffic-less road - virtually no cars at all - with every Victorian-built household having a door directly on to the street (two households per house: upstairs and downstairs, explicitly designed this way). Every household has a useful garden. You can walk to all shops and schools

Result? It's incredible. Kids play together on the car-less street unsupervised like it is the 1950s. Football and hopscotch. Because the kids interact so much the neighbours do too. People leave apple pies for each other, like idyllic America in the movies.

It is remarkable. Just get the housing right and people will behave as they want to behave, which is pro-social and neighbourly, nearly everyone likes to feel safe, and surrounded by people they can identify and trust. That's it. It's not subatomic physics

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Poundbury is a bit shit. But it is orders of magnitude less shit than the shit box estates the shit developers shit all over the countryside.

An idea - layout a new suburb or whatever. Each house plot is marked out. You can build 1 house on each plot. No more, no less.

Plots for flats - for flats only.

Put in the roads, and the utilities.

Sell the plots. Maybe each side of each street to a different developer.... with quite a few individual ones thrown in.

So any developer will be paying the full cost of loans with panning permission up front. They won't be holding that for 10 years....

When I lived in Australia and NZ property for development were always sold in 1/4 acre sections, and people would commission their own houses. It seemed to work OK.

On the other hand both countries seem to have crazy property bubbles now.

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

moonshine said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Yes I agree. Make Poundbury aesthetic standards mandatory nationwide for planning permission. Then at least some of the NIMBYism would disappear.

Yes. Just fucking do it

Trump, in his odd, mad, uncanny way, sensed this, with his demand that all Federal buildings be "beautiful". He meant neo-classical or maybe Gothic at a push

Thing is, he's right, despite being insane. Architects, for all their ingenuity, have not bettered the Georgian terrace, and/or the higgeldy-piggledy English market town (or French, or Dutch, or German, or Italian, etc etc etc) for furthering human happiness via building style. People with kids want their own front door, on ground level, in a solid building, and a short WALK to the shops and schools. That's it

In a few inner city areas old and young or mad sexy people might be delighted with skyscrapers, and good luck to them. But families need a small defensible space with a garden

Do that, and you have a successful development, and it might even end up handsome and desirable. And you can do it quite densely, as Prince Chuck has done in Poundbury

The thing is, skyscrapers CAN work for families. I’ve lived it. If they’re spacious inside, have a good sized balcony, good common facilities that breed a sense of community. Ample parking. Security at the complex entrance. Etc... It works all over the world but has barely been attempted in the UK, because it’s been more profitable to build commercial property or 1000ft high piggy banks for foreign money launderers.

Complement this with the market town development type you advocate. And then increase every reasonably sized village by 10. And you’re sorted.

My older daughter and her mum have just moved to a quirky bit of north London. It is not fashionable, it is safe and pleasant, it is highly intriguing, because it is a traffic-less road - virtually no cars at all - with every Victorian-built household having a door directly on to the street (two households per house: upstairs and downstairs, explicitly designed this way). Every household has a useful garden. You can walk to all shops and schools

Result? It's incredible. Kids play together on the car-less street unsupervised like it is the 1950s. Football and hopscotch. Because the kids interact so much the neighbours do too. People leave apple pies for each other, like idyllic America in the movies.

It is remarkable. Just get the housing right and people will behave as they want to behave, which is pro-social and neighbourly, nearly everyone likes to feel safe, and surrounded by people they can identify and trust. That's it. It's not subatomic physics

Leon said:

moonshine said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Yes I agree. Make Poundbury aesthetic standards mandatory nationwide for planning permission. Then at least some of the NIMBYism would disappear.

Yes. Just fucking do it

Trump, in his odd, mad, uncanny way, sensed this, with his demand that all Federal buildings be "beautiful". He meant neo-classical or maybe Gothic at a push

Thing is, he's right, despite being insane. Architects, for all their ingenuity, have not bettered the Georgian terrace, and/or the higgeldy-piggledy English market town (or French, or Dutch, or German, or Italian, etc etc etc) for furthering human happiness via building style. People with kids want their own front door, on ground level, in a solid building, and a short WALK to the shops and schools. That's it

In a few inner city areas old and young or mad sexy people might be delighted with skyscrapers, and good luck to them. But families need a small defensible space with a garden

Do that, and you have a successful development, and it might even end up handsome and desirable. And you can do it quite densely, as Prince Chuck has done in Poundbury

The thing is, skyscrapers CAN work for families. I’ve lived it. If they’re spacious inside, have a good sized balcony, good common facilities that breed a sense of community. Ample parking. Security at the complex entrance. Etc... It works all over the world but has barely been attempted in the UK, because it’s been more profitable to build commercial property or 1000ft high piggy banks for foreign money launderers.

Complement this with the market town development type you advocate. And then increase every reasonably sized village by 10. And you’re sorted.

My older daughter and her mum have just moved to a quirky bit of north London. It is not fashionable, it is safe and pleasant, it is highly intriguing, because it is a traffic-less road - virtually no cars at all - with every Victorian-built household having a door directly on to the street (two households per house: upstairs and downstairs, explicitly designed this way). Every household has a useful garden. You can walk to all shops and schools

Result? It's incredible. Kids play together on the car-less street unsupervised like it is the 1950s. Football and hopscotch. Because the kids interact so much the neighbours do too. People leave apple pies for each other, like idyllic America in the movies.

It is remarkable. Just get the housing right and people will behave as they want to behave, which is pro-social and neighbourly, nearly everyone likes to feel safe, and surrounded by people they can identify and trust. That's it. It's not subatomic physics

Sounds like Temple Fortune

ping said:

My solution to the housing problem is the same solution that pretty much every government comes to after a while in power.

Tax it.

Solves many many problems.

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Poundbury is a bit shit. But it is orders of magnitude less shit than the shit box estates the shit developers shit all over the countryside.

An idea - layout a new suburb or whatever. Each house plot is marked out. You can build 1 house on each plot. No more, no less.

Plots for flats - for flats only.

Put in the roads, and the utilities.

Sell the plots. Maybe each side of each street to a different developer.... with quite a few individual ones thrown in.

So any developer will be paying the full cost of loans with panning permission up front. They won't be holding that for 10 years....

When I lived in Australia and NZ property for development were always sold in 1/4 acre sections, and people would commission their own houses. It seemed to work OK.

On the other hand both countries seem to have crazy property bubbles now.

Australia has, without question, the most hideous suburban housing on earth. And I have travelled widely in north America

It is a rich, lucky country, but I fear they are storing up troubles with their urban planning. Huge sprawl, no walkable socialising, atomised "families". It is already happening in the western suburbs of Sydney. Bigtime drugs and gangs

Humans need to live quite densely. We generally like it. As long as we can close the door and be safe in our castle

geoffw said:

Prince Philip had a very fine and fitting send off.
Pleased he wanted O Valiant Hearts to be played, the most moving of the remembrance hymns, but latterly considered by some as inappropriately "glorifying war".

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.

And while I'd make the Conservatives 60-65% likely to win (i.e. outright majority) the next election it is far from certain.

For all the focus on Labour, the reality is that it is the government's record that will be on trial. Sensible oppositions "never interrupt their opponents when they're making a mistake".

The hardest thing for the government to navigate in the next three years is going to be housing. If they get it right, lots of new people will be property owners and will have positive equity in their homes.

If they get it wrong, then either house prices are materially lower (and lots of previously Conservative voters are angry) or the age of first home purchase continues to rise, resulting in ever more disenfranchised voters.

Right now, we care about Covid and Brexit (where, after a rocky start, the government has done a good, perhaps excellent, job). But that will be old news in three years time.

The problem with housing is simple. Under the Tories planning framework, councils have to build endless new homes to hit the quota. If they do, it means granting developers permission to build endless rabbit hutch homes (all they seem to want to build). If they don't developers always win on appeal in their plan to build endless rabbit hutch homes.

I know that NIMBYism gets a lot of bad press. But in somewhere like Stockton-on-Tees I totally understand it. Endless new housing developments have been done across the borough for years. And yet the government says not enough are going up, so developers have won every appeal and keep building in places that understandably locals are hacked off about.

How the Tories gain electoral credit for concreting over England I don't know.

Not something I expected to hear from you.

So you don't think people need somewhere to live?

Should people live in tents instead?

Or should we deport people so we have fewer households?

Its the Tory equivalent of Douglas Adams' Shoe Event Horizon. In many towns all we seem to be doing is building more and more and more houses. Where we need to replace old housing stock then that makes sense. But most are 3/4 bed "executive" style homes with minimal internal space and even less space in-between houses, often with a fabulous view of a major road.

Are there really people clamouring to buy these homes? That desperately want a large mortgage on a small house on estates that quickly descend into sink status thanks to every other house having a rotating cast of impossible to police BTL tenants?

The solution is planning. Build houses that people need. Which is precisely what the NPPF overrules in favour of the developers.

Topically, Prince Charles has shown the way. Build Poundbury. It is enormously successful, even though Guardianista architects loathe it (because they are unable to "express themselves",. and this is "pastiche")

Build 100 Poundburys. The nation will look better, and be happier, and you can do it quite densely

https://www.visit-dorset.com/explore/poundbury-p1124333

It just needs wanky architects to admit that maybe our Georgian ancestors mastered the urban housing form, and it can't get any better

Poundbury is a bit shit. But it is orders of magnitude less shit than the shit box estates the shit developers shit all over the countryside.

An idea - layout a new suburb or whatever. Each house plot is marked out. You can build 1 house on each plot. No more, no less.

Plots for flats - for flats only.

Put in the roads, and the utilities.

Sell the plots. Maybe each side of each street to a different developer.... with quite a few individual ones thrown in.

So any developer will be paying the full cost of loans with panning permission up front. They won't be holding that for 10 years....

When I lived in Australia and NZ property for development were always sold in 1/4 acre sections, and people would commission their own houses. It seemed to work OK.

On the other hand both countries seem to have crazy property bubbles now.

Australia has, without question, the most hideous suburban housing on earth. And I have travelled widely in north America

It is a rich, lucky country, but I fear they are storing up troubles with their urban planning. Huge sprawl, no walkable socialising, atomised "families". It is already happening in the western suburbs of Sydney. Bigtime drugs and gangs

Humans need to live quite densely. We generally like it. As long as we can close the door and be safe in our castle

Nah. Despite the metropolitan elite disdain, people prefer suburban sprawl and houses with gardens etc as places to live, and for families to grow up. Modern estates, are actually quite good places to live.