williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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

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

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

Labour Manifesto:

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

I may have to lend them my vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

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

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

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

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, if it is on their land.

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

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

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

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

kinabalu said:

TimS said:

Have we done the latest Ed Davey stunt? Being drunk.

https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1801268147749638260?s=46

Yes, he's really coming over as a man you'd like to go for 6 pints with.

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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

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

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

Labour Manifesto:

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

I may have to lend them my vote.

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

Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More xenophobia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what if its got big?

Its not big enough to resolve the housing shortage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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

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

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

Labour Manifesto:

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

I may have to lend them my vote.

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

Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More xenophobia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what if its got big?

Its not big enough to resolve the housing shortage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

PedestrianRock said:

Reform party political broadcast is just 5 mins of blank screen saying “Britain is broken, Britain needs Reform” with no audio

GIN1138 said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

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

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

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

wooliedyed said:

GIN1138 said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

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

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

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

They are Roy Jenkinsites, not Liberals

Muesli said:

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?

Foxy said:

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...

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.



https://www.thetimes.com/article/cdc8d582-17fc-4757-8f4b-ddcee80fdfdb

Anabobazina said:

Foxy said:

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!

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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

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

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

Labour Manifesto:

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

I may have to lend them my vote.

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

Yes, planning should be completely non existent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuses, excuses.

Nowhere has grown enough "beyond recognition".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More xenophobia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So sympathetic you back any excuse to prevent construction?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what if its got big?

Its not big enough to resolve the housing shortage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Andy_JS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.



https://www.thetimes.com/article/cdc8d582-17fc-4757-8f4b-ddcee80fdfdb

Goodness me. 😲

GIN1138 said:

If FPTP gifts the Lib-Dems main opposition status due to obliterating the Tories, will they still be agitating for PR?

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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

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

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

Labour Manifesto:

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

I may have to lend them my vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

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

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

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

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, if it is on their land.

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

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

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

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But then you'd be sat there staring at each other, wouldn't you? Bit intense.

pigeon said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

williamglenn said:

That poll has Labour sliding again, and Reform + Tories = Labour.

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

NEW THREAD

williamglenn said:

That poll has Labour sliding again, and Reform + Tories = Labour.

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

wooliedyed said:

Labour down to 37 with YouGov too. All happening

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

FPT

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

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

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

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

Labour Manifesto:

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

I may have to lend them my vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you have a go at writing a design code?

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

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

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

Can they overlook neighbours? Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, if it is on their land.

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

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

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

What next, should your neighbour be allowed pets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

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

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

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

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?

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

Monksfield said:

EPG said:

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

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

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

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

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Leon said:

WhisperingOracle said:

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

https://x.com/greatwhyteshk/status/1798071608516727270?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg

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

Cicero said:

GIN1138 said:

If FPTP gifts the Lib-Dems main opposition status due to obliterating the Tories, will they still be agitating for PR?

Yes. Our Victorian political system needs a serious overhaul.

PedestrianRock said:

Cicero said:

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

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

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

I’ve been wondering about just betting Lib Dem in basically every Scotland seat individually and seeing if it profits…

Cleitophon said:

williamglenn said:

Cleitophon said:

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

How long have you lived in the UK?

Long enough to know about Timmy robinson and his mates