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.
Where I live is towns and villages with fields. Some have grown more thasn others. It's my town that I experience. Not some local authority. And not as village.
You ought to be bloody happy some places have grown that much. Go and bother some real Nimbies somewhere3 else. Rather than generate new Nimbies with your attitude and your discourtesy.
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.
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?
Those balconies already directly overlook the neighbouring ones.
No they don't. They directly overlook their own gardens and indirectly overlook the neighbours. I'm suggesting that they could extend backwards and build over their own garden entirely and put balconies facing sideways. Are you ok with that? If not then you have to concede that you need planning rules.
They already do overlook the neighbours. If someone stands at a 115° angle on that balcony they're looking directly into the neighbours garden.
If you're asking me if I have a problem if that were a 90° angle instead, then no of course I would not. What frigging difference does it make?
If one of those properties didn't have the balcony and the other did then standing on the edge of that balcony would be directly on the perimeter as discussed, and anyone looking at 90° would see what you're moaning about, no different.
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.
Where I live is towns and villages with fields. Some have grown more thasn others. It's my town that I experience. Not some local authority. And not as village.
You ought to be bloody happy some places have grown that much. Go and bother some real Nimbies somewhere3 else. Rather than generate new Nimbies with your attitude and your discourtesy.
So undeveloped rural towns and villages?
Kind of the place that needs to be developed to get millions of new homes.
Care to put a figure on this alleged tripling of houses? How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of villages in your town alone are you talking about?
Sunak and Hunt's net favourables at the bottom of the chart. Assuming they lose badly their wing of the party will likely lose control of the Tories and the right in the UK for a generation, especially with Farage's approval net even higher than theirs.
No surprises in the Labour manifesto, very much caution first
It's a Ming vase manifesto.
Either he carries it throughout his first term, or he drops it and gets down to business.
Which will it be?
It will be tempting to take the Blair approach and do nothing in term 1 for fear of not getting term 2. For the sake of the country, I hope he doesn't, and that he uses "we're in a bigger hole than I feared" excuse as a cover.
But he's not a young man, which would point towards a need to hurry.
I'm hoping that the "it's even worse than we thought" excuse will be deployed quickly and lead to an immediate raid to repair the public finances and vital public services, but it would be best to move quickly and with force at the start of the Parliament and get the pain out of the way quickly. I'm not sure that this lot are bold enough to contemplate such measures.
If they are then obvious targets include:
*Equalisation of CGT and income tax rates *Abolishing or substantially raising the cap on council tax rises, along possibly with substantial reform (at a minimum, more bands to force owners of expensive properties to cough up a lot more) *Abolition of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions *A wealth tax
They could also raise a lot of money by lowering inheritance tax thresholds and raising rates, but the level of public dislike for IHT borders on rabid so that's likely not happening under any circumstances.
They need a big net run rate improvement and they choose to field first, which is a best case scenario leaves them a minimal chase which will make far less different to the average figure than batting first and sticking 250 on them.
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.
Where I live is towns and villages with fields. Some have grown more thasn others. It's my town that I experience. Not some local authority. And not as village.
You ought to be bloody happy some places have grown that much. Go and bother some real Nimbies somewhere3 else. Rather than generate new Nimbies with your attitude and your discourtesy.
So undeveloped rural towns and villages?
Kind of the place that needs to be developed to get millions of new homes.
Care to put a figure on this alleged tripling of houses? How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of villages in your town alone arre you talking about?
I have told you several times that my town has been developed greatly. I was not talking about other towns in the same arbitrary local authority.
No point in discussing thingfs with you if you think I'm lying rather than that you might just possibly be wrong.
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.
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?
Those balconies already directly overlook the neighbouring ones.
No they don't. They directly overlook their own gardens and indirectly overlook the neighbours. I'm suggesting that they could extend backwards and build over their own garden entirely and put balconies facing sideways. Are you ok with that? If not then you have to concede that you need planning rules.
They already do overlook the neighbours. If someone stands at a 115° angle on that balcony they're looking directly into the neighbours garden.
If you're asking me if I have a problem if that were a 90° angle instead, then no of course I would not. What frigging difference does it make?
If one of those properties didn't have the balcony and the other did then standing on the edge of that balcony would be directly on the perimeter as discussed, and anyone looking at 90° would see what you're moaning about, no different.
I can't tell if you're being contrarian or obtuse.
Just to be 100% clear, the premise is that you have a row of terraced houses and someone extends backwards to build on the entirety of their plot, and puts balconies on the side elevation looking over their neighbours' gardens directly, not at an angle. You think that's ok?
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.
Where I live is towns and villages with fields. Some have grown more thasn others. It's my town that I experience. Not some local authority. And not as village.
You ought to be bloody happy some places have grown that much. Go and bother some real Nimbies somewhere3 else. Rather than generate new Nimbies with your attitude and your discourtesy.
So undeveloped rural towns and villages?
Kind of the place that needs to be developed to get millions of new homes.
Care to put a figure on this alleged tripling of houses? How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of villages in your town alone are you talking about?
How do you put hundreds of thousands of villages in a town?
Well, earlier I asked where Labour were targetting because I hadn't seen any campaigning anywhere... but I've just been canvassed by them, for the first time at any election since I moved to Romford in 2002.
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?
Even now the Liberals are forecast to get fewer seats than Charles Kennedy got in 2005.
If there was any change in the 2 party system it would be Reform overtaking the Tories on voteshare this election, maybe even on seats too in time and Reform then becoming the main party of the right in the UK. Probably taking over the Tories in due course too with Farage Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government ultimately
Nigel Farage’s Reform party has overtaken the Conservatives in a poll for the first time in a symbolic moment that deals another blow to Rishi Sunak’s electoral hopes.
The YouGov survey for The Times found that support for Reform had increased by two points to 19 per cent while the Tories were unchanged on 18 per cent.
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?
They are Roy Jenkinsites, not Liberals
Speak for yourself! I am a Liberal.
Even so, you do need to bear in mind that when Roy Jenkins stopped being President of the EU and returned to this country, he wanted to join the Liberal Party It was David Steel who persuaded him to found the SDP and split the Labour Party - with the objective of achieving the reform of the left.
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?
Even now the Liberals are forecast to get fewer seats than Charles Kennedy got in 2005.
If there was any change in the 2 party system it would be Reform overtaking the Tories on voteshare this election, maybe even on seats too in time and Reform then becoming the main party of the right in the UK. Probably taking over the Tories in due course too
Is it not a bit odd that YouGov sought favourability ratings for Carla Denyer and Richard Tice (who isn't even Reform UK leader now) and not Sir Ed Davey? And Vaughan Gething but nobody else from either Wales or Scotland? Do they have a fixed list of names from the main two parties and then draw a few wildcards out of a hat?
This was exactly my thought when I read the list. Very poor from Yougov I would suggest. I am not even a LD fan but I would expect the leader of the third-ish national party in the country to be included in these sorts of lists.
Bet 365 have Vaz at 41 in Leicester East. Its a crazy constituency with both major parties split and 10 candidates. I reckon that is value. Likely Lab hold, but Vaz is a big man locally...
Value loser I think.
Meanwhile, McQuestion Time Leaders Debate from Auld Reekie on BBC1 now for those that just can’t get enough!
Nigel Farage’s Reform party has overtaken the Conservatives in a poll for the first time in a symbolic moment that deals another blow to Rishi Sunak’s electoral hopes.
The YouGov survey for The Times found that support for Reform had increased by two points to 19 per cent while the Tories were unchanged on 18 per cent.
Nigel Farage’s Reform party has overtaken the Conservatives in a poll for the first time in a symbolic moment that deals another blow to Rishi Sunak’s electoral hopes.
The YouGov survey for The Times found that support for Reform had increased by two points to 19 per cent while the Tories were unchanged on 18 per cent.
Nigel Farage’s Reform party has overtaken the Conservatives in a poll for the first time in a symbolic moment that deals another blow to Rishi Sunak’s electoral hopes.
The YouGov survey for The Times found that support for Reform had increased by two points to 19 per cent while the Tories were unchanged on 18 per cent.
Bet 365 have Vaz at 41 in Leicester East. Its a crazy constituency with both major parties split and 10 candidates. I reckon that is value. Likely Lab hold, but Vaz is a big man locally...
Value loser I think.
Meanwhile, McQuestion Time Leaders Debate from Auld Reekie on BBC1 now for those that just can’t get enough!
Probably a loser, but don't underestimate his (industrial washing) machine.
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.
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.
But then you'd be sat there staring at each other, wouldn't you? Bit intense.
Sunak and Hunt's net favourables at the bottom of the chart. Assuming they lose badly their wing of the party will likely lose control of the Tories and the right in the UK for a generation, especially with Farage's approval net even higher than theirs.
No surprises in the Labour manifesto, very much caution first
It's a Ming vase manifesto.
Either he carries it throughout his first term, or he drops it and gets down to business.
Which will it be?
It will be tempting to take the Blair approach and do nothing in term 1 for fear of not getting term 2. For the sake of the country, I hope he doesn't, and that he uses "we're in a bigger hole than I feared" excuse as a cover.
But he's not a young man, which would point towards a need to hurry.
I'm hoping that the "it's even worse than we thought" excuse will be deployed quickly and lead to an immediate raid to repair the public finances and vital public services, but it would be best to move quickly and with force at the start of the Parliament and get the pain out of the way quickly. I'm not sure that this lot are bold enough to contemplate such measures.
If they are then obvious targets include:
*Equalisation of CGT and income tax rates *Abolishing or substantially raising the cap on council tax rises, along possibly with substantial reform (at a minimum, more bands to force owners of expensive properties to cough up a lot more) *Abolition of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions *A wealth tax
They could also raise a lot of money by lowering inheritance tax thresholds and raising rates, but the level of public dislike for IHT borders on rabid so that's likely not happening under any circumstances.
40% CGT would be one of the highest rates in the world and would close the UK for investment.
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.
Where I live is towns and villages with fields. Some have grown more thasn others. It's my town that I experience. Not some local authority. And not as village.
You ought to be bloody happy some places have grown that much. Go and bother some real Nimbies somewhere3 else. Rather than generate new Nimbies with your attitude and your discourtesy.
So undeveloped rural towns and villages?
Kind of the place that needs to be developed to get millions of new homes.
Care to put a figure on this alleged tripling of houses? How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of villages in your town alone arre you talking about?
I have told you several times that my town has been developed greatly. I was not talking about other towns in the same arbitrary local authority.
No point in discussing thingfs with you if you think I'm lying rather than that you might just possibly be wrong.
I think your version of "greatly" differs to mine.
Are you talking a hundred thousand extra homes? Two hundred thousand extra homes? What are we talking about here?
I'll give context, Warrington in 1968 had 65,000 population, its now a quarter of a million, an increase of nearly 200,000, which is roughly a four-fold increase so more than what you're talking about and that increase is nowhere near enough for the population growth we've had in this country.
So how hundreds of thousands of population has your town grown by and why is that "enough"?
No need to name the town, just round it if you'd like to the nearest hundred thousand population growth.
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?
QTWTAIN
If you look back to the posts on PB.com in 1924 you can see the same confidence that the Conservative-Liberal duopoly would soon re-emerge.
What do we believe of the chances of that young chap Mr Mosley taking over the new Labour-men, though ? He has joined them in this election, and both Mr Maynard Keynes and Mr Ramsey Macdonald, consider him as the future of the Left in this country.
Also, I have heard it said widely that Mr Wells believes that the Martians should soon be invading our shores, by hot-air balloon.
Nigel Farage’s Reform party has overtaken the Conservatives in a poll for the first time in a symbolic moment that deals another blow to Rishi Sunak’s electoral hopes.
The YouGov survey for The Times found that support for Reform had increased by two points to 19 per cent while the Tories were unchanged on 18 per cent.
The main problem with Labour getting c.500 seats is practical - the layout of the Commons. You'd have to have around 100 Labour MPs sitting on the opposition benches. Hilarious. Perhaps they'd finally take the opportunity to repair Parliament and move elsewhere for a few years. Clacton would be perfect.
They won't repair it. They're waiting for it to burn down so they can have a new one.
Sunak and Hunt's net favourables at the bottom of the chart. Assuming they lose badly their wing of the party will likely lose control of the Tories and the right in the UK for a generation, especially with Farage's approval net even higher than theirs.
No surprises in the Labour manifesto, very much caution first
It's a Ming vase manifesto.
Either he carries it throughout his first term, or he drops it and gets down to business.
Which will it be?
Starmer has been massacred by all the right-on thinkers (TLS today is a recent example, in a review by Tom Clark of Will Hutton's 'This Time No Mistakes') but unless I have missed something, I have heard no serious attacks on him from the centre left/social democrat people who have ever had to try to win a general election; he starts 124 seats away from a majority of 1.
My intuition (ie guess) is that he has learned from the past and this election is the most important and epoch making since 1945. Even more than 1979. Fewer Ming vases after 5th July.
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.
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.
But then you'd be sat there staring at each other, wouldn't you? Bit intense.
Only if you look that way. Which direction you look is up to you, not the property.
The main problem with Labour getting c.500 seats is practical - the layout of the Commons. You'd have to have around 100 Labour MPs sitting on the opposition benches. Hilarious. Perhaps they'd finally take the opportunity to repair Parliament and move elsewhere for a few years. Clacton would be perfect.
They won't repair it. They're waiting for it to burn down so they can have a new one.
They could make a fortune raffling tickets to light the fuse...
I had assumed the 15% for the LDs in the previous poll was a massive outlier, and they would be -4 in the next one. Clearly not, and supported by a slight uptick in most of the others this week.
Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.
The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.
The final sentence in the article states: "For me, the leap to speculations about aliens is a leap too far. But it is important to retain an open mind as we solve this mystery."
I interpret it as - It is a mystery that deserves investigation but aliens probably are not the answer.
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.
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?
Those balconies already directly overlook the neighbouring ones.
No they don't. They directly overlook their own gardens and indirectly overlook the neighbours. I'm suggesting that they could extend backwards and build over their own garden entirely and put balconies facing sideways. Are you ok with that? If not then you have to concede that you need planning rules.
They already do overlook the neighbours. If someone stands at a 115° angle on that balcony they're looking directly into the neighbours garden.
If you're asking me if I have a problem if that were a 90° angle instead, then no of course I would not. What frigging difference does it make?
If one of those properties didn't have the balcony and the other did then standing on the edge of that balcony would be directly on the perimeter as discussed, and anyone looking at 90° would see what you're moaning about, no different.
I can't tell if you're being contrarian or obtuse.
Just to be 100% clear, the premise is that you have a row of terraced houses and someone extends backwards to build on the entirety of their plot, and puts balconies on the side elevation looking over their neighbours' gardens directly, not at an angle. You think that's ok?
If they extend backwards on the entirety of their plot then any balconies would be by definition need to be on their neighbours plot instead, so it would not be OK, of course.
If they've not built over their entire plot and so instead put the balcony onto their own land, then yes of course its OK.
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.
Where I live is towns and villages with fields. Some have grown more thasn others. It's my town that I experience. Not some local authority. And not as village.
You ought to be bloody happy some places have grown that much. Go and bother some real Nimbies somewhere3 else. Rather than generate new Nimbies with your attitude and your discourtesy.
So undeveloped rural towns and villages?
Kind of the place that needs to be developed to get millions of new homes.
Care to put a figure on this alleged tripling of houses? How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of villages in your town alone arre you talking about?
I have told you several times that my town has been developed greatly. I was not talking about other towns in the same arbitrary local authority.
No point in discussing thingfs with you if you think I'm lying rather than that you might just possibly be wrong.
I think your version of "greatly" differs to mine.
Are you talking a hundred thousand extra homes? Two hundred thousand extra homes? What are we talking about here?
I'll give context, Warrington in 1968 had 65,000 population, its now a quarter of a million, an increase of nearly 200,000, which is roughly a four-fold increase so more than what you're talking about and that increase is nowhere near enough for the population growth we've had in this country.
So how hundreds of thousands of population has your town grown by and why is that "enough"?
No need to name the town, just round it if you'd like to the nearest hundred thousand population growth.
An Englishman's two favourite sights are uninterrupted green fields giving way to blue remembered hills, and the monthly Halifax house price data.
I know that still has Labour on twice the Tories, and with an 18pp lead over Reform, but 37% is a low score for Labour. The Tories received 36.9% of the vote at the 2010GE. 42% was the lowest poll score for Labour during the 1997GE campaign.
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?
Even now the Liberals are forecast to get fewer seats than Charles Kennedy got in 2005.
If there was any change in the 2 party system it would be Reform overtaking the Tories on voteshare this election, maybe even on seats too in time and Reform then becoming the main party of the right in the UK. Probably taking over the Tories in due course too
Will you be jumping ship to REF soon, Hy?
Noooooooooooo, Young HY.......... Don't do it........
Here on PB we really do need one sensible Tory to remind us all what the Conservative Party used to be like..... Even though we disagree.
You may suffer for a while, but we really do need to have moderate decent Conservatives around,
Once we get electoral reform, and voting by STV, you can still vote Conservative, but you can say which sort of Conservative you prefer.....
Come on, Young HY. No jumping ship to REF. Please.
Also, on the LDs, I was talking to my non-political daughter last night, and Ed Davey's embarrassing Dad routine has definitely cut through (favourably) amongst her age group (first time voters).
We then spent half an hour looking at the various political TikToks. Labour's are very slick, LDs a mixed bunch, and as for the Tories... well in her words, they look like they have been put together by old people who've never used a computer before.
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?
Even now the Liberals are forecast to get fewer seats than Charles Kennedy got in 2005.
If there was any change in the 2 party system it would be Reform overtaking the Tories on voteshare this election, maybe even on seats too in time and Reform then becoming the main party of the right in the UK. Probably taking over the Tories in due course too with Farage Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government ultimately
If (and it's still a big if) the Conservative vote share collapses far enough then very strange things can and will start to happen.
A scenario in which a heavily split popular vote has Reform in second place with anything between 0 and 2 seats is also, of course, eminently possible.
In a steeplechase between Con, LD and Ref all on values in the mid-to-high teens, efficient distribution of the vote (particularly for Con and LD in the marginals that they're contesting) becomes all important. Could easily end up with 100 seats for one and 30 for the other in either direction.
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.
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?
Those balconies already directly overlook the neighbouring ones.
No they don't. They directly overlook their own gardens and indirectly overlook the neighbours. I'm suggesting that they could extend backwards and build over their own garden entirely and put balconies facing sideways. Are you ok with that? If not then you have to concede that you need planning rules.
They already do overlook the neighbours. If someone stands at a 115° angle on that balcony they're looking directly into the neighbours garden.
If you're asking me if I have a problem if that were a 90° angle instead, then no of course I would not. What frigging difference does it make?
If one of those properties didn't have the balcony and the other did then standing on the edge of that balcony would be directly on the perimeter as discussed, and anyone looking at 90° would see what you're moaning about, no different.
I can't tell if you're being contrarian or obtuse.
Just to be 100% clear, the premise is that you have a row of terraced houses and someone extends backwards to build on the entirety of their plot, and puts balconies on the side elevation looking over their neighbours' gardens directly, not at an angle. You think that's ok?
If they extend backwards on the entirety of their plot then any balconies would be by definition need to be on their neighbours plot instead, so it would not be OK, of course.
If they've not built over their entire plot and so instead put the balcony onto their own land, then yes of course its OK.
What if they leave a foot gap to the perimeter of their plot? Would it be ok then?
Re; the Ultraterrestrial paper, it's quite interesting.
The "as yet to be peer reviewed" is nevertheless a hint of amusement, a bit like Wikipedia's "Citation Needed." At the same time, we could be in for some surprises in the next few decades on this topic, though. I don't think most people have adjusted to , or are aware of the greater expert interest in the topic, at the moment.
It is interesting
Check this as well. A UFO seen in Tehran by multiple witnesses, and filmed
Looks very convincing so it’s either a rather clever hoax, or - the other main explanation - drones. What do you reckon?
If it is a hoax it is one of the best - with several different angles - and yet we live in an era when tech can create wildly convincing fake videos, of course
That's certainly more visually convincing than many I've seen, but I no longer know whether to trust any video like this , as AI film technology advances, as you're mentioning.
For that reason increasingly I think any breakthroughs here might come from verbal testimony first, not video or photography. Let's see what transpires in Congress.
There’s a very astute comment under that tweet from a Spanish guy. Who points out that such is the state of video fakery (superb) even if we now get the most compelling footage in history people will dismiss it as fake, indeed they are MORE likely to dismiss it as fake the better it is
So we are now past the moment when any piece of video or photo evidence, no matter how good, will do “the job”
And also many people are inclined to dismiss anything anyway, as we see
That’s got me thinking - what next? This evolution leaves us with eye witness testimony, but that is all too easily dismissed as “he’s a loony” - or we may get very senior people saying “yes we have evidence” but that can likewise be dismissed as psy-ops, contagion, mass hallucination
The conclusion is that we will now never have evidence for UFOs that convinces anyone, and indeed we will never have clinching evidence of anything - anything at all - ever again - and everyone can live in denial of anything they choose. It’s going to be mad. We will all live in our own tiny bubble of personal reality, no objective reality will exist, not any more
The wet market hypothesis was arguably an early test run of this: post truth reality
Objective reality has never existed. Reality depends on subjective observers, our own personal realities. Objective reality is a very useful illusion based on the overlap of myriad personal realities, and close enough to the underlying truths to be useful for science and technology and indeed our survival.
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.
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?
Those balconies already directly overlook the neighbouring ones.
No they don't. They directly overlook their own gardens and indirectly overlook the neighbours. I'm suggesting that they could extend backwards and build over their own garden entirely and put balconies facing sideways. Are you ok with that? If not then you have to concede that you need planning rules.
They already do overlook the neighbours. If someone stands at a 115° angle on that balcony they're looking directly into the neighbours garden.
If you're asking me if I have a problem if that were a 90° angle instead, then no of course I would not. What frigging difference does it make?
If one of those properties didn't have the balcony and the other did then standing on the edge of that balcony would be directly on the perimeter as discussed, and anyone looking at 90° would see what you're moaning about, no different.
I can't tell if you're being contrarian or obtuse.
Just to be 100% clear, the premise is that you have a row of terraced houses and someone extends backwards to build on the entirety of their plot, and puts balconies on the side elevation looking over their neighbours' gardens directly, not at an angle. You think that's ok?
If they extend backwards on the entirety of their plot then any balconies would be by definition need to be on their neighbours plot instead, so it would not be OK, of course.
If they've not built over their entire plot and so instead put the balcony onto their own land, then yes of course its OK.
What if they leave a foot gap to the perimeter of their plot? Would it be ok then?
So you're asking if they build a balcony on the perimeter of their house, up to the perimeter of their property, would that be OK. Yes, of course, why not?
And the neighbour would of course be perfectly entitled to do as they please with their own land, such as building a wall upto their perimeter so the balcony looks directly onto a brick wall. Which is why people tend not to do as you suggest.
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.
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?
Those balconies already directly overlook the neighbouring ones.
No they don't. They directly overlook their own gardens and indirectly overlook the neighbours. I'm suggesting that they could extend backwards and build over their own garden entirely and put balconies facing sideways. Are you ok with that? If not then you have to concede that you need planning rules.
They already do overlook the neighbours. If someone stands at a 115° angle on that balcony they're looking directly into the neighbours garden.
If you're asking me if I have a problem if that were a 90° angle instead, then no of course I would not. What frigging difference does it make?
If one of those properties didn't have the balcony and the other did then standing on the edge of that balcony would be directly on the perimeter as discussed, and anyone looking at 90° would see what you're moaning about, no different.
I can't tell if you're being contrarian or obtuse.
Just to be 100% clear, the premise is that you have a row of terraced houses and someone extends backwards to build on the entirety of their plot, and puts balconies on the side elevation looking over their neighbours' gardens directly, not at an angle. You think that's ok?
If they extend backwards on the entirety of their plot then any balconies would be by definition need to be on their neighbours plot instead, so it would not be OK, of course.
If they've not built over their entire plot and so instead put the balcony onto their own land, then yes of course its OK.
What if they leave a foot gap to the perimeter of their plot? Would it be ok then?
So you're asking if they build a balcony on the perimeter of their house, up to the perimeter of their property, would that be OK. Yes, of course, why not?
And the neighbour would of course be perfectly entitled to do as they please with their own land, such as building a wall upto their perimeter so the balcony looks directly onto a brick wall. Which is why people tend not to do as you suggest.
No, people don't do it because it's against the planning rules. You're being naive about the kind of abuse that would go on if it were a free-for-all.
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.
I’ve been wondering about just betting Lib Dem in basically every Scotland seat individually and seeing if it profits…
I still think he needs Sleeve Garters like Morpheus to contain those voluminous shirts. Where he's going he's going to need the superhero skills too, maybe.
Edit timed out. I'm sure it's superb quality, but that shirt is billowing like a tent borrowed from Lawrence of Arabia.
My pic for the day, Sir Keir:
I'm no fan of SKS, but I've no objection to his shirt wearing. I actually think he wears a shirt better than Rishi. I've no time for those tight tailored shirts Rishi wears. They look daft, and expensively daft. I had one once - it was a freebie with a suit - and I hated it. Felt far too tight. And if a tight shirt on a man Rishi's size looks daft, a tight shirt on a man my size looks unpleasant. Further objections to shirts in general: I find it very hard to get shirts to fit. Collar size is easy, if you buy shirts in collar size - though I have a very big neck. But shirts are always too short on me - I have a long body and short legs and wide shoulders, like a Mr. Man - and most of them come untucked if I lift my arms above shoulder height.
Don't say we don't discuss the big issues on pb.com.
You also have big thighs, I believe?
FPT: I do, and I'm mildly disturbed that my musings on my mismatched body parts are memorable enough that you can recall them. Big thighs and massive calves. But short legs and a long body. Large head and a large neck, but short arms. Like, I don't know, a T-Rex or something. I mean, you wouldn't look at me and your eyes instantly water with the oddness of me, but finding clothes to fit is not straightforward. I have large body parts but not a large body, if that makes sense.
"..But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks, Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass; I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty To strut before a wanton ambling nymph; I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion, Cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time Into this breathing world, scarce half made up, And that so lamely and unfashionable That dogs bark at me as I halt by them; Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace, Have no delight to pass away the time, Unless to spy my shadow in the sun And descant on mine own deformity:.."
I used to know that speech word for word. It wasn't the one I did at school, but in a place where I was staying the Laurence Olivier version was one of the few videos we had. Here it is
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?
Long enough to know about Timmy robinson and his mates
Has Tommy Ten Names changed his name to Timmy Ten Names?
Anyway this is good old Blighty. It is more likely the ghost of Peter Wright installing Boris Johnson or Prince Andrew as titular Prime Minister than rioting on Parliament Green.
Comments
You ought to be bloody happy some places have grown that much. Go and bother some real Nimbies somewhere3 else. Rather than generate new Nimbies with your attitude and your discourtesy.
If you're asking me if I have a problem if that were a 90° angle instead, then no of course I would not. What frigging difference does it make?
If one of those properties didn't have the balcony and the other did then standing on the edge of that balcony would be directly on the perimeter as discussed, and anyone looking at 90° would see what you're moaning about, no different.
Kind of the place that needs to be developed to get millions of new homes.
Care to put a figure on this alleged tripling of houses? How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of villages in your town alone are you talking about?
If they are then obvious targets include:
*Equalisation of CGT and income tax rates
*Abolishing or substantially raising the cap on council tax rises, along possibly with substantial reform (at a minimum, more bands to force owners of expensive properties to cough up a lot more)
*Abolition of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions
*A wealth tax
They could also raise a lot of money by lowering inheritance tax thresholds and raising rates, but the level of public dislike for IHT borders on rabid so that's likely not happening under any circumstances.
They need a big net run rate improvement and they choose to field first, which is a best case scenario leaves them a minimal chase which will make far less different to the average figure than batting first and sticking 250 on them.
Just braindead.
No point in discussing thingfs with you if you think I'm lying rather than that you might just possibly be wrong.
Just to be 100% clear, the premise is that you have a row of terraced houses and someone extends backwards to build on the entirety of their plot, and puts balconies on the side elevation looking over their neighbours' gardens directly, not at an angle. You think that's ok?
If there was any change in the 2 party system it would be Reform overtaking the Tories on voteshare this election, maybe even on seats too in time and Reform then becoming the main party of the right in the UK. Probably taking over the Tories in due course too with Farage Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government ultimately
The YouGov survey for The Times found that support for Reform had increased by two points to 19 per cent while the Tories were unchanged on 18 per cent.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cdc8d582-17fc-4757-8f4b-ddcee80fdfdb
Even so, you do need to bear in mind that when Roy Jenkins stopped being President of the EU and returned to this country, he wanted to join the Liberal Party It was David Steel who persuaded him to found the SDP and split the Labour Party - with the objective of achieving the reform of the left.
It nearly worked.
Meanwhile, McQuestion Time Leaders Debate from Auld Reekie on BBC1 now for those that just can’t get enough!
Lab: 37% (-1)
Reform: 19% (+2)
Con: 18% (nc)
Lib Dem: 14% (-1)
Green: 7 (-1)
SNP: 3 (+1)
Plaid: 1 (nc)
Other: 2 (+1)
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1801329280858591268
Are you talking a hundred thousand extra homes? Two hundred thousand extra homes? What are we talking about here?
I'll give context, Warrington in 1968 had 65,000 population, its now a quarter of a million, an increase of nearly 200,000, which is roughly a four-fold increase so more than what you're talking about and that increase is nowhere near enough for the population growth we've had in this country.
So how hundreds of thousands of population has your town grown by and why is that "enough"?
No need to name the town, just round it if you'd like to the nearest hundred thousand population growth.
Also, I have heard it said widely that Mr Wells believes that the Martians should soon be invading our shores, by hot-air balloon.
Not expecting Reform voters to have very effective tactical voting...
My intuition (ie guess) is that he has learned from the past and this election is the most important and epoch making since 1945. Even more than 1979. Fewer Ming vases after 5th July.
And Mr Pedley taking election questions on LBC for this hour
NEW THREAD
Double cross-over coming?
"For me, the leap to speculations about aliens is a leap too far. But it is important to retain an open mind as we solve this mystery."
I interpret it as - It is a mystery that deserves investigation but aliens probably are not the answer.
If they've not built over their entire plot and so instead put the balcony onto their own land, then yes of course its OK.
Here on PB we really do need one sensible Tory to remind us all what the Conservative Party used to be like..... Even though we disagree.
You may suffer for a while, but we really do need to have moderate decent Conservatives around,
Once we get electoral reform, and voting by STV, you can still vote Conservative, but you can say which sort of Conservative you prefer.....
Come on, Young HY. No jumping ship to REF. Please.
We then spent half an hour looking at the various political TikToks. Labour's are very slick, LDs a mixed bunch, and as for the Tories... well in her words, they look like they have been put together by old people who've never used a computer before.
A scenario in which a heavily split popular vote has Reform in second place with anything between 0 and 2 seats is also, of course, eminently possible.
In a steeplechase between Con, LD and Ref all on values in the mid-to-high teens, efficient distribution of the vote (particularly for Con and LD in the marginals that they're contesting) becomes all important. Could easily end up with 100 seats for one and 30 for the other in either direction.
Copyright: Pseuds Corner
And the neighbour would of course be perfectly entitled to do as they please with their own land, such as building a wall upto their perimeter so the balcony looks directly onto a brick wall. Which is why people tend not to do as you suggest.
The Kaiser has a lot to answer for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5JF9Gq5tL4
Anyway this is good old Blighty. It is more likely the ghost of Peter Wright installing Boris Johnson or Prince Andrew as titular Prime Minister than rioting on Parliament Green.