Lib Dems! Winning here? – politicalbetting.com

Anabobazina said:

kle4 said:

Anabobazina said:

Sophy says that Labour’s manifesto is an “election winner”, but she urges more tax and spend to make it “easier to govern”.

It was overly wordy and non-committal, so I should have loved it, but it was a slog.

Have you actually read it? 😃

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Baso, Winchester, Guildford, have all gone, possibly forever.

TheGreenMachine said:

Does anyone know which bookmakers allow doubles and trebles for Politics?

Many thanks,

Peter_the_Punter said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

Every day that passes extinction becomes more probable for the Tories. Another week of this and sub 100 will be the standard expectation.

The idea of Harry Worth doing PMQs is growing on me.

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Baso, Winchester, Guildford, have all gone, possibly forever.

There are no final victories in politics.

squareroot2 said:

Tories sre fucked but the nation will be fuvked when. Labour get in. Tax until the pips squeak.....

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

Scott_xP said:

@josiahmortimer
Some hefty stats here from @robfordmancs: "Rishi Sunak’s net satisfaction rating of -53 is the worst recorded by MORI one month out from an election in all of the elections they have covered since 1979 - worse than Gordon Brown in 2010 (-36), John Major in 1997 (-46) or James Callaghan in 1979 (-33).

"The net rating of the Sunak government is, at -71, the worst approval of any British government MORI have asked about on the brink of an election...

"More than two thirds of British voters tell MORI the government doesn’t deserve to be re-elected next month, nearly three quarters say it is time for a change, and four fifths say the government has done a bad job. All of these figures are now at the highest level since Sunak took office...

"While a miracle of late persuasion cannot be ruled out, at present the most relevant question for Conservative MPs isn’t “can we win?” but rather “can any of us survive?”"

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_xP said:

@josiahmortimer
Some hefty stats here from @robfordmancs: "Rishi Sunak’s net satisfaction rating of -53 is the worst recorded by MORI one month out from an election in all of the elections they have covered since 1979 - worse than Gordon Brown in 2010 (-36), John Major in 1997 (-46) or James Callaghan in 1979 (-33).

"The net rating of the Sunak government is, at -71, the worst approval of any British government MORI have asked about on the brink of an election...

"More than two thirds of British voters tell MORI the government doesn’t deserve to be re-elected next month, nearly three quarters say it is time for a change, and four fifths say the government has done a bad job. All of these figures are now at the highest level since Sunak took office...

"While a miracle of late persuasion cannot be ruled out, at present the most relevant question for Conservative MPs isn’t “can we win?” but rather “can any of us survive?”"

I don't even know how to respond to this.

Pagan2 said:

Dopermean said:

Fishing said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The real news from the Labour Party manifesto launch is buried away on page 103.

Labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. Recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, Labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. We will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling.
https://labour.org.uk/change/build-an-nhs-fit-for-the-future/

Would be better to tax winnings, with the proceeds to reduce NI or corporation tax. It is ridiculous that income from working hard is taxed very heavily while games of chance aren't. In the US, where I am at the moment, gambling winnings are taxed as normal income.

If you were to tax winnings as income then surely losses should be allowed to be offset?

In the us you can offset losses

stodge said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

noneoftheabove said:

Razedabode said:

I think Surrey Heath is a nailed on Lib Dem gain. Tonnes of Lib Dem leaflets being shoved through my door as well

There must have been quite substantial changes in the electorate in Surrey with wfh and London prices driving younger people out of London to Surrey, all very helpful for the LDs. Now in the past those 30 and 40 somethings were Conservative, or turning Conservative but that switch is not happening and the rate people are moving out at has accelerated.

It's interesting, Farnham is/was in that seat, an area I know well. I'd call it true blue Tory with the seat next door to it of Damian Hinds really true blue. But even that on the current polling becomes only vaguely safe.

I do think Johnson set the rot in. @CorrectHorseBattery in 2019 recounted that if weren't for Corbyn, the Lib Dems would have cleaned up.

I do think the signs of the Lib Dem success were there in 2019, similar to the Tory success in 2017.

The Conservative position at local level has been deteriorating for some years.

I think the only Conservative administration left in the country is Reigate & Banstead - all the others have fallen either to the LDs or to coalitions which exclude the Conservatives.

The County Council remains Conservative controlled but the majority was reduced in 2021 and is just seven. Whether that will be maintained at the 2025 elections remains very much to be seen.

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

You said a balcony directly on the perimeter of the "garden", not the house.

If the two meet then I would have a balcony directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden, which is quite common. So common a quick Google search brought up loads of images of terraces with adjoining balconies just like that, so what's the problem?

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

You said a balcony directly on the perimeter of the "garden", not the house.

If the two meet then I would have a balcony directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden, which is quite common. So common a quick Google search brought up loads of images of terraces with adjoining balconies just like that, so what's the problem?

No, those would not be *directly* on the perimeter of your garden. You've misunderstood the premise of my question.

If there were no planning rules, someone could build into their garden and put a balcony directly overlooking yours, not indirectly at an angle.

Heathener said:

stodge said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

noneoftheabove said:

Razedabode said:

I think Surrey Heath is a nailed on Lib Dem gain. Tonnes of Lib Dem leaflets being shoved through my door as well

There must have been quite substantial changes in the electorate in Surrey with wfh and London prices driving younger people out of London to Surrey, all very helpful for the LDs. Now in the past those 30 and 40 somethings were Conservative, or turning Conservative but that switch is not happening and the rate people are moving out at has accelerated.

It's interesting, Farnham is/was in that seat, an area I know well. I'd call it true blue Tory with the seat next door to it of Damian Hinds really true blue. But even that on the current polling becomes only vaguely safe.

I do think Johnson set the rot in. @CorrectHorseBattery in 2019 recounted that if weren't for Corbyn, the Lib Dems would have cleaned up.

I do think the signs of the Lib Dem success were there in 2019, similar to the Tory success in 2017.

The Conservative position at local level has been deteriorating for some years.

I think the only Conservative administration left in the country is Reigate & Banstead - all the others have fallen either to the LDs or to coalitions which exclude the Conservatives.

The County Council remains Conservative controlled but the majority was reduced in 2021 and is just seven. Whether that will be maintained at the 2025 elections remains very much to be seen.

This, by the way, is another of the reasons the Conservatives will not bounce straight back. They have been losing their base at local level.

You need those activists to get back into contention at Westminster.

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

You said a balcony directly on the perimeter of the "garden", not the house.

If the two meet then I would have a balcony directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden, which is quite common. So common a quick Google search brought up loads of images of terraces with adjoining balconies just like that, so what's the problem?

No, those would not be *directly* on the perimeter of your garden. You've misunderstood the premise of my question.

If there were no planning rules, someone could build into their garden and put a balcony directly overlooking yours, not indirectly at an angle.

Those are directly on the perimeter. They literally go across the perimeter since they're adjoining.

Whatever someone wants to build on their land, is their business.

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

You said a balcony directly on the perimeter of the "garden", not the house.

If the two meet then I would have a balcony directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden, which is quite common. So common a quick Google search brought up loads of images of terraces with adjoining balconies just like that, so what's the problem?

No, those would not be *directly* on the perimeter of your garden. You've misunderstood the premise of my question.

If there were no planning rules, someone could build into their garden and put a balcony directly overlooking yours, not indirectly at an angle.

Those are directly on the perimeter. They literally go across the perimeter since they're adjoining.

Whatever someone wants to build on their land, is their business.

Am I going to have to draw a picture to explain it to you?

If one of those houses extended backwards and put balconies on the side, you would be ok with that?

boulay said:

Well, Rishi might not be remembered as the best PM, not remotely the longest serving PM, not the longest serving modern day Tory PM but he might go into the history books as the very last Conservative PM. Beat that Liz and Boris.

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

You said a balcony directly on the perimeter of the "garden", not the house.

If the two meet then I would have a balcony directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden, which is quite common. So common a quick Google search brought up loads of images of terraces with adjoining balconies just like that, so what's the problem?

Cleitophon said:

williamglenn said:

Cleitophon said:

One observation: with the vote share for reform only giving 3 seats and a super majority for Labour, I predict a Capitol Hill style event.

How long have you lived in the UK?

Your reliance on the measured, stiff upper lip "British spirit" carries no weight with me. The nature of contemporary populism totally unlike anything in modern British political experience.

Benpointer said:

madmacs said:

Re the Lib Dems. I live in Gloucester City - part of which which is now in Tewkesbury Constituency. Electoral Calculus shows it as a Labour gain. I don't see it. As someone on else here said the Labour candidate is clearly a paper candidate' getting a bit of experience for the future. Labour have no councillors in the Constituency and doing very little - clearly focused on Gloucester Parliamentary seat. In contrast the Lib Dems have I think eighteen councillors in the Constituency and are working hard. The Tory MP does not have a great reputation, at least in the Gloucester bits of his constituency. Not saying the Lib Dems will win, but I don't see how Labour comes anywhere but third.

EC is not much use for tactical voting. I'd suggest looking at tactical.vote:

https://tactical.vote/tewkesbury/

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

Shortly there will be an election, in which the Lib Dems will become the opposition.

I will literally piss myself laughing if they do. The Karma for 2015 will be absolute.

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

The only question remaining is how those shifts are distributed.

A three percent Lab to LD swing everywhere is probably bad for Rishi.

A fifteen percent swing in the right 100 or so constituencies is potentially terrifying.

And by now, the profusion of orange diamonds means that the LibDem targeting strategy ought to be literally visible from space.

wooliedyed said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

Shortly there will be an election, in which the Lib Dems will become the opposition.

I will literally piss myself laughing if they do. The Karma for 2015 will be absolute.

Not impossible we will have a forced coalition opposition if they come in at, say, 70 odd seats each

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour leads by 24%.

Lowest EVER Conservative % (worse than Truss).

Highest Lib Dem % in 2024.

🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 42% (-3)
Conservative 18% (-1)
Reform 17% (–)
Lib Dem 13% (+3)
Green 5% (–)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 7-10 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1801291564997636520

The only question remaining is how those shifts are distributed.

A three percent Lab to LD swing everywhere is probably bad for Rishi.

A fifteen percent swing in the right 100 or so constituencies is potentially terrifying.

And by now, the profusion of orange diamonds means that the LibDem targeting strategy ought to be literally visible from space.

Just need to correct 3 words of that 2nd line.

A three per cent Lab to LD swing everywhere is certainly excellent news for Sunak.

Although if it were just that it would be too little, too late.

Roger said:

Pleased to see Rayner polling so well. For me she's been the standout star of the last few weeks. She capsized the Daily Mail campaign against her and left Dacre and his nasty crew drowning in their vileness

She's feisty and real. Not what I thought of her at all a year ago and she's made Starmer look better than he sometimes deserved

Casino_Royale said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_xP said:

@josiahmortimer
Some hefty stats here from @robfordmancs: "Rishi Sunak’s net satisfaction rating of -53 is the worst recorded by MORI one month out from an election in all of the elections they have covered since 1979 - worse than Gordon Brown in 2010 (-36), John Major in 1997 (-46) or James Callaghan in 1979 (-33).

"The net rating of the Sunak government is, at -71, the worst approval of any British government MORI have asked about on the brink of an election...

"More than two thirds of British voters tell MORI the government doesn’t deserve to be re-elected next month, nearly three quarters say it is time for a change, and four fifths say the government has done a bad job. All of these figures are now at the highest level since Sunak took office...

"While a miracle of late persuasion cannot be ruled out, at present the most relevant question for Conservative MPs isn’t “can we win?” but rather “can any of us survive?”"

I don't even know how to respond to this.

You may not believe me but I do feel for you Casino. I disagree with your political views but I appreciate they are sincerely held. Johnson, Truss then Sunak - three disastrous leaders in a row is unsustainable.

Thanks.

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

Shortly there will be an election, in which the Lib Dems will become the opposition.

I will literally piss myself laughing if they do. The Karma for 2015 will be absolute.

GIN1138 said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

Shortly there will be an election, in which the Lib Dems will become the opposition.

I will literally piss myself laughing if they do. The Karma for 2015 will be absolute.

It's 100 years since the Liberal Party was destroyed in the 1924 general election, so maybe after a Century it's time for a Liberal renaissance?

GIN1138 said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

Shortly there will be an election, in which the Lib Dems will become the opposition.

I will literally piss myself laughing if they do. The Karma for 2015 will be absolute.

It's 100 years since the Liberal Party was destroyed in the 1924 general election, so maybe after a Century it's time for a Liberal renaissance?

Tweedledee said:

Definitely read the book, perhaps Amis's best. The movie I agree is excellent but just muses on the idea for 2 hours, the book establishes it and sets a proper story against it.

Clever idea but Stoppard had it first - it's basically R & K are Dead.

wooliedyed said:

The Tories biggest problem now isn't so much the gap (which if anything is reducing slightly) its their share - low 20s or teens. Not enough butter over too much bread. Unless they are losing very unevenly you just can't hold seats to any extent on 20. Bare Minimum 25 to try and hold a 97 level if labour come in about 40. So they need to start seeing some point gain by this time next week i think or ill be lumping on 0 to 50 or 50 to 100 seats. Its almost over.

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

Would you be happy with another house having a balcony *directly on the perimeter of your garden*?

Of course, if it is on their land.

And if I want one too on my land then those two can meet.

As again is very common in many semis or flats or mews. Often with a little fence separating the two balconies.

Honestly, some things some people come up with here is unbelievable.

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

If the two met then you would have a window that opened into your neighbour's house.

You said a balcony directly on the perimeter of the "garden", not the house.

If the two meet then I would have a balcony directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden, which is quite common. So common a quick Google search brought up loads of images of terraces with adjoining balconies just like that, so what's the problem?

I can't quite picture what you mean by "a balcony directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden".

The fence between my garden and my neighbours garden is directly on the perimeter of my garden and their garden.

If instead of a fence there's a balcony that goes above the garden that adjoins with the neighbours balcony, then its directly on the same perimeter, just like a fence might be.

If you have a row of terraced houses like in the photo you posted, you are saying that you are fine with somebody building over their own garden entirely and putting balconies *directly* overlooking the neighbouring gardens?

HYUFD said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

Shortly there will be an election, in which the Lib Dems will become the opposition.

I will literally piss myself laughing if they do. The Karma for 2015 will be absolute.

They won't, Election Maps UK forecast is currently Labour 442, Tories 101, LDs 61, SNP 19
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

Cicero said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cicero said:

Just to back up the move in the polls with a bit of anecdotal evidence.

In a Scottish seat previously held by the Lib Dems, but where they were squeezed to third in 2017/19. Now nominally marginal between SNP and Tory. Canvassing last night, previously majority Con area, now strongly Lib Dem, Tory vote collapsed.

Having fought in the area in 2019 it is pretty obvious that there has been a giant swing. Something big is coming.

Cicero, what were you doing in Scotland. Did you get on the wrong flight?

My family are scattered to the four winds, but Scotland was home until I left the UK altogether.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.

All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.

You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.

It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.

If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.

That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.

Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.

But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.

Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.

And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.

You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.

Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.

The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.

The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.

Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.

Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.

What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.

Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.

Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.

A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.

Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.

No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.

An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.

We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.

A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.

Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.

So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?

Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.

My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.

More xenophobia.

I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.

The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.

You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.

As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.

So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.

Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.

You're picking variables to try and accuse me of lying.

I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.

If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.

So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

There is a chronic housing shortage today, not years from now, but right now. Here and now, people living in this country - both migrants, people born here, old people and young people, who need a home and there are not enough of them.

Waiting for Godot to sort out every problem prior to building houses is not a solution when the people who need the houses are already in this country today.

You need to build the houses and build the facilities. Right here, right now.

If its expanded over a lifetime, then there's been a lifetime to build new facilities too - but either way its not enough to reverse the chronic housing shortage that already exists. So sorry "build elsewhere" is not a solution, that's what every NIMBY wants, we need millions of homes and that means building everywhere. Immediately, without delays.

I'm not the one who has been objecting. Can't you get that into your head? But my place is now so bigt it needs a new bloody town centre or two. And you need planning for that.

And you have the discourtesy to treat me like the shit you want to see overflowing from your new estates becvause you don't believe in planning.

No wonder we get Nimbies when we have libertarians like you.

So what if its got big?

Its not big enough to resolve the housing shortage.

That's what happens when the population changes, places get bigger.

Not a single local authority has tripled in size, so you're exaggerating how big its grown anyway.

GIN1138 said:

I remember previous times here though, when were all speculating that the Lib-Dems were going to replace Labour and it all came to naught.

In the end the Con-Lab duopoly seems to hold... Will 2024 be the the year that changes?

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Abolition of Planning (incl. officers) would give us gin palaces all over the national talks.

"Money talks" needs a bridle, which is what the planning system is for - and we like it being controlled.

There are opportunities to do much - for example in London quite a lot of the Green Belt can be quite accurately called "brown field", and could be used. And there is a lot of opportunity for intensification of modern estates fairly close to Inner London which are near the end of their design life.

@BartholomewRoberts
This is an analysis of the labour manifesto on planning. The changes are a bit subtle but will have an impact.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/labour-manifesto-what-does-mean-practitioners-from-day-harris-kc--qk8oe/

When you say things like 'we need to get rid of planning officers' I think you mean that you want to allocate land for development, with design codes, rather than a process of 'case by case' wrangling. But someone still has to allocate the land for development and write the design code and then enforce it.

Yes I want design codes but no planning permission or consent required.

If you own land that is zoned for construction then you should be able to decide today you want to start building on it and get the builders in tomorrow, without discussions with the Council or neighbours or anyone else.

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

How high, and how close to the boundary?
What about balconies/windows, can they overlook neighbours?
how many houses on each plot?
what about access. Can you connect to the road at any point on your land?
noise from plant, impacts on trees in neighbouring gardens?

How high? 3 stories should be automatic. 4+ I can see requiring permission.

How close to the boundary? Touching but not crossing the boundary.

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

How many houses on each plot? Owner/developers choice.

Road access, that's a good question. Have to think on that one.

Trees etc should be treated the same as if someone who already lives in a property wants to plant a tree.

ok...
I appreciate your effort.
However, how many people do you think would be happy with having a three storey building with balconies and windows overlooking them directly on their garden boundary?
And then the next developer could build right up to the boundary on the next plot, thus completely blocking out all the light/outlook to the houses that have been built on the first plot.

There are many successful examples of zoning and design codes, but the building rights end up being very limited and restrictive, largely to try and avoid the situation I have described above.
They are mostly in places where building is going on at relatively lower densities than that which exist in the UK.
So you end up back where you started, with a system of ' discretionary planning permission'.
This is the 'circuit' that politicians run whenever they try and implement this idea.

My neighbours can see into my garden and I can into theirs already. That's perfectly standard in any development of semis or terraces.

Speaking of which, if the neighbour builds to the property edge and you do too, then you have a semi detached home. Ditto if your other neighbour does then now it's a terrace.

If you want a gap between yourself and your neighbours there's no reason you can't put a gap in your own land.

It is astonishing to me how horrified many people are by many things that are actually very common.

Indeed.

If you want total privacy and nobody to be able to see into your land nobody is stopping you from buying land that is completely remote and building fences/hedges around your property.

But the idea that its horrific if a neighbour can see into your garden . . . I wonder where people think the views in semis or terraces (or even most detached homes) actually look into?

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.

All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.

You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.

It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.

If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.

That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.

Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.

But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.

Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.

And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.

You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.

Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.

The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.

The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.

Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.

Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.

What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.

Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.

Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.

A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.

Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.

No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.

An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.

We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.

A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.

Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.

So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?

Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.

My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.

More xenophobia.

I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.

The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.

You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.

As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.

So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.

Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.

You're picking variables to try and accuse me of lying.

I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.

If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.

So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

There is a chronic housing shortage today, not years from now, but right now. Here and now, people living in this country - both migrants, people born here, old people and young people, who need a home and there are not enough of them.

Waiting for Godot to sort out every problem prior to building houses is not a solution when the people who need the houses are already in this country today.

You need to build the houses and build the facilities. Right here, right now.

If its expanded over a lifetime, then there's been a lifetime to build new facilities too - but either way its not enough to reverse the chronic housing shortage that already exists. So sorry "build elsewhere" is not a solution, that's what every NIMBY wants, we need millions of homes and that means building everywhere. Immediately, without delays.

I'm not the one who has been objecting. Can't you get that into your head? But my place is now so bigt it needs a new bloody town centre or two. And you need planning for that.

And you have the discourtesy to treat me like the shit you want to see overflowing from your new estates becvause you don't believe in planning.

No wonder we get Nimbies when we have libertarians like you.

So what if its got big?

Its not big enough to resolve the housing shortage.

That's what happens when the population changes, places get bigger.

Not a single local authority has tripled in size, so you're exaggerating how big its grown anyway.

I'm not. It has grown that much. And you're going by local authorities not settlements. So you are being not only discourteous but wilfully refusing to understand the difference.

If you keep claiming that I tell you something is white when I've told you something is black, there's no point in expecting any rational; discussion.

I'd rather vote for Nimbies than have someone like you roaming around without any controls. And that is entirely your fault.

Casino_Royale said:

Anabobazina said:

kle4 said:

Anabobazina said:

Sophy says that Labour’s manifesto is an “election winner”, but she urges more tax and spend to make it “easier to govern”.

It was overly wordy and non-committal, so I should have loved it, but it was a slog.

Have you actually read it? 😃

No.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Does anyone know the details of Labour's proposed planning reforms?

All I can see on BBC is that "planning is at the heart of reforms" but then silence on what those reforms are?

Our planning system and NIMBYism is the biggest barrier to growth and development in this country. But as far as reforms are concerned, I'll believe it when I see it.

Labour Manifesto:

Planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes
...
Britain is hampered by a planning regime that means we struggle to build either the infrastructure or housing the country needs.
...
The current planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth. Labour will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new roads, railways, reservoirs, and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will set out new national policy statements, make major projects faster and cheaper by slashing red tape, and build support for developments by ensuring communities directly benefit. We will also update national planning policy to ensure the planning system meets the needs of a modern economy, making it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure, and gigafactories.
...
We will ensure our industrial strategy supports the development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector, removes planning barriers to new datacentres.
...
We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework to undo damaging Conservative changes, including restoring mandatory housing targets...strengthen the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
...
Appoint 300 new planning officers

The above is essentially everything from the Labour manifesto that mentions planning. There's a bit more detail on local plans, green belt, (& 5G!) etc, but nothing you'd miss.

The best thing you can say about it is that recruiting more planning officers should at least mean that planning applications are processed more quickly.

I guess we'd have to wait and see a future Planning Bill to get the detail. I expect that it's a long way from what you want.

Thanks.

Abolishing planning officers altogether by making planning automatic would be a far better policy. But looks like nobody is brave enough to embrace that approach unfortunately.

Looks like Labour at least understand the problem and are attempting a solution, even if its not enough its better than nothing.

I may have to lend them my vote.

Abolishing planning officers? Nonsense. Would make planning completely nonexistent. Housing estates built without the sewerage and processing ability, that sort of tyhing, a shitstorm in the most literal sense.

Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

It's the water firms responsibility to handle sewerage not housing developers. They need to do their own job, not pass the buck.

All developments should pay for is to connect to the network. Once it's in the network, it's not their responsibility anymore.

You obviously dfon't know that the sewerage network consists of pipes and processing plants. It's the latter that are the issue. They need to be built first. Before the houses. How else is that going to happen, if not planning? Otherwise you are demanding urban level sewerage facilities all over farmland, is the logical consequence of your vision. Just in case some dodgy shoebox merchant might want to build houses 15 miles from nowhere.

It's the water firms job to deal with processing plants.

If they haven't built enough they need to do their own job.

That's not an excuse to prevent construction any more than a shortage of construction is preventing population growth.

Absolutely urban level sewerage facilities are needed wherever they are needed.

But you keep ignoring the fact it's slower to build shit processing plants than the sort of shit houses you get now. Very tricky to find sites for them, too. So advance planning is needed.

Edit: where I live, the council has over the years repeatedly identified large swathes of land for new housing, but made sure the sewerage issue was handed over to the water authority in advance.

And you keep ignoring the fact it doesn't matter. People live here now.

You complain that if planning is reformed we'd get more houses now. Good! We need them now, not years from now.

Our population has already grown. Our demographics have already changed. We have a shortage of houses today, not years from now.

The water firms need to do their own bloody job. And if they don't they need to be fined heavily until they either do, or go bankrupt and have their assets taken from them as a result and given to someone who will do their job.

The water firms should be dealing with in advance of population changes, not housing changes. Housing needs to keep up with population and demographic changes and if water has fallen behind that is NOT an excuse to fail to build houses.

Unless you're prepared to identify millions of people to execute or deport, the houses are needed today not years from now.

Piss off, there's a good chum. I don't need any absolutist lectures from you. My area has expanded enormously and beyond recognition in terms of population and houses, repeatedly, with more coming as I can see from the Local Plan. Having the houses in reasonably sensible areas and with at least some shit processing ready first is a pretty small thing to ask.

What we do get from the libertarian and greedy developer is the attempt to cram more houses on school playing fields and children's local play areas - and that is the only time I've ever put in a complaint about a planning application: when a school was losing some of its playing fields. Your demand for no planning officers would allow that to run riot.

Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

Our population has grown. That means villages need to become towns, towns become cities and cities become bigger.

Tough shit if that means you don't recognise changes. Don't be so xenophobic, people need somewhere to live.

A icnrease of a factor of 3-4 in my area is obviously not good enough for you. And I have tried to explain that I have recognised the need for the changes and didn't complain about them except where they were directly hurting people's most basic existi9ng amenities - no shitstorms, the need to keep places for children actually to play games. But as I can't do it in words of fewer than four letters I will just have to leave it at that.

Meanwhile, the more you come out with the stuff you do, the more the need for planning officers is confirmed.

No, of course that pathetically small amount is not good enough.

An increase of 100x may be needed in some places. Villages turning into new towns with hundreds of thousands of extra homes.

We are millions of homes short of what we need. So your xenophobia at not recognising changes can piss right off.

A factor of 3 or 4 means: 3 or 4 times the *existing* number of houses.

Now look at your post and see how stupid it is.

So if it was 100 and goes to 300 you think that's "enough"?

Don't be stupid. We need millions. Going from 100 to 100,000 in many places would be a good start.

My place *was* a town to begin with! So it's made a very substantial contribution. Other places can do their share.

More xenophobia.

I'd be curious to see some data, but I'm calling bullshit. Just more xenophobic excuse making.

The level of your argument is shown by the idea that *not complaining* about the expansion of the town is xenophobic. And that complainiong about children's playgrounds being built on is xenoiphobic. And I'm not letting on where I live in case you buy up the land around it.

You are complaining about the fictitious expansion and saying "Other places can do their share" - exact quote.

As for where you're talking about its easy to figure out. You claim you had a 3x increase of population. Midlothian had the highest recorded population change between the last two censuses of a 1.16x increase.

So the answer is . . . nowhere. There is no local authority in Scotland that has tripled in size. Its in your head.

Meanwhile the people who need houses are actually real, unlike your fictional locale.

You're picking variables to try and accuse me of lying.

I wasn't talking aboiut a county but about a town. And not just over ten years either, but my lifetime. If it gets any bigger then we will end up with the sort of problems you will have when only houses are built without facilities near by. That's already a point of contention.

If this is the way you treat people who are already fairly sympathetic then I'm going to go and vote bloody LD as a result.

So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

There is a chronic housing shortage today, not years from now, but right now. Here and now, people living in this country - both migrants, people born here, old people and young people, who need a home and there are not enough of them.

Waiting for Godot to sort out every problem prior to building houses is not a solution when the people who need the houses are already in this country today.

You need to build the houses and build the facilities. Right here, right now.

If its expanded over a lifetime, then there's been a lifetime to build new facilities too - but either way its not enough to reverse the chronic housing shortage that already exists. So sorry "build elsewhere" is not a solution, that's what every NIMBY wants, we need millions of homes and that means building everywhere. Immediately, without delays.

I'm not the one who has been objecting. Can't you get that into your head? But my place is now so bigt it needs a new bloody town centre or two. And you need planning for that.

And you have the discourtesy to treat me like the shit you want to see overflowing from your new estates becvause you don't believe in planning.

No wonder we get Nimbies when we have libertarians like you.

So what if its got big?

Its not big enough to resolve the housing shortage.

That's what happens when the population changes, places get bigger.

Not a single local authority has tripled in size, so you're exaggerating how big its grown anyway.

I'm not. It has grown that much. And you're going by local authorities not settlements. So you are being not only discourteous but wilfully refusing to understand the difference.

If you keep claiming that I tell you something is white when I've told you something is black, there's no point in expecting any rational; discussion.

I'd rather vote for Nimbies than have someone like you roaming around without any controls. And that is entirely your fault.

Yes, because you're the problem. Typical NIMBY scum.

Local authorities are how these things are measured, and there is nowhere that has tripled in size. Nowhere close to it. A village tripling in size is meaningless, some undeveloped places within authorities will grow in size by 10-fold, 100-fold or more to get even minor developments built. That's kind of the point.

So saying my settlement has had a 3-fold increase is not impressive.