Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mr Angry

RSPB Vs the Government

Recommended Posts

The RSPB are the latest to get angry about the Government.

Now I understand that nature is important but in the other hand there were about 100,000 households living in temporary accommodation in September 2021 and that number has surely risen since then. We do need to build more permanent homes for people so what is the solution?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

The RSPB are the latest to get angry about the Government.

Now I understand that nature is important but in the other hand there were about 100,000 households living in temporary accommodation in September 2021 and that number has surely risen since then. We do need to build more permanent homes for people so what is the solution?

 

First, house builders must be forced to build houses on the plots of land for which they already have planning permission. A shelter report in 2020 showed that 40% of homes granted planning permission go unbuilt (that's over 1m homes since 2010)  

https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/40_of_homes_granted_planning_permission_go_unbuilt#:~:text=40% of homes granted planning permission go unbuilt,in England - new research from Shelter shows.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/08/over-1m-homes-in-england-with-planning-permission-not-built

It is an utter disgrace that unscrupulous building companies are allowed to accumulate vast numbers of plots of land with planning permission then leave them undeveloped in order to force councils to grant even more planning permission. No such builders should be allowed to acquire further plots of land until they have built on the land they already own and for which they have planning permission.

Secondly, green-belt land must remain untouched while there remain so many brown-field sites available for development.

What is needed is a genuine housebuilding strategy that serves the needs of people and protects our precious green spaces. What we are going to get from Truss and her vile "Brittania Unchained" ideological obsessed monsters, is a license for her chums in the house-building industry (major Tory Party donors btw) to desecrate the environment at will, irrespective of the wishes of local communities. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, horsefly said:

First, house builders must be forced to build houses on the plots of land for which they already have planning permission. A shelter report in 2020 showed that 40% of homes granted planning permission go unbuilt (that's over 1m homes since 2010)  

https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/40_of_homes_granted_planning_permission_go_unbuilt#:~:text=40% of homes granted planning permission go unbuilt,in England - new research from Shelter shows.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/08/over-1m-homes-in-england-with-planning-permission-not-built

It is an utter disgrace that unscrupulous building companies are allowed to accumulate vast numbers of plots of land with planning permission then leave them undeveloped in order to force councils to grant even more planning permission. No such builders should be allowed to acquire further plots of land until they have built on the land they already own and for which they have planning permission.

Secondly, green-belt land must remain untouched while there remain so many brown-field sites available for development.

What is needed is a genuine housebuilding strategy that serves the needs of people and protects our precious green spaces. What we are going to get from Truss and her vile "Brittania Unchained" ideological obsessed monsters, is a license for her chums in the house-building industry (major Tory Party donors btw) to desecrate the environment at will, irrespective of the wishes of local communities. 

Thanks for that. What is the point in applying for permission on land when they already own land that has permission? What do they gain by it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

The RSPB are the latest to get angry about the Government.

Now I understand that nature is important but in the other hand there were about 100,000 households living in temporary accommodation in September 2021 and that number has surely risen since then. We do need to build more permanent homes for people so what is the solution?

 

Its a balance. While it may seem unimportant short term, everything will have its place in our day to day existence.

So many people have and want to live in big cities and others want/have to live in the countryside.

So why we must build houses, roads, shops etc we also have to realise that nature has a big part to play in our lives.

Short term, we have to solve the economic problems we have. But we must also continue to maintain everything that makes living bearable and worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

Thanks for that. What is the point in applying for permission on land when they already own land that has permission? What do they gain by it?

Firstly, it gives builders a way of pressurising councils, desperate to meet house building targets, to give planning permission for further land, often in more contentious environmentally valuable (and hence more profitable) areas. Secondly, it is extremely rare for land granted planning permission to lose value. Indeed, it is virtually guaranteed to increase significantly in value. Thus, the more land a builder can extract planning permission for from desperate councils, the more profits they make. Thirdly, they frequently use a delaying tactic to change the terms under which they were originally granted planning permission to force councils to provide more advantageous conditions. For example, big building schemes are frequently submitted promising the construction of significant numbers of "affordable housing" for first time buyers, something most councils find hard to resist. All too often the builder returns to the council to say it would be impossible for them to begin building their houses in the present economic circumstances unless the promised affordable housing is significantly reduced. In my area I have yet to see a large building scheme where this hasn't happened.

Thus, any large building company in reasonable financial health has plenty of incentives to delay building on land for which they have already secured planning permission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/rspb-news/rspb-news-stories/the-powerful-laws-protecting-our-most-important-places-for-wildlife/?utm_source=notes_on_nature_20220924&utm_medium=email&utm_term=notes_on_nature&utm_content=7&utm_campaign=notes_on_nature

 

I received this email yesterday. It takes something doesn't it when the RSPB writes to its membership about deregulation.

A sad state of affairs and another consequence of moving away from sensible and forward-thinking EU protection guidance / laws. Another thank you to Brexit.

Reaction to the mini 'budget' link below.

https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/rspb-england/posts/minibudget/?from=morelikethis

 

More deregulation to come too reading Kwarteng today. What will be left of a civil society or a balance between industry and the environment?

 

One thing is for sure and that is the Tory party will be voted out comprehensively in the next election (something perhaps they even wish might happen so they can blame the next administration for struggling to deal with the last appalling 12 plus years of their chaos).

 

 

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, sonyc said:

https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/rspb-news/rspb-news-stories/the-powerful-laws-protecting-our-most-important-places-for-wildlife/?utm_source=notes_on_nature_20220924&utm_medium=email&utm_term=notes_on_nature&utm_content=7&utm_campaign=notes_on_nature

 

I received this email yesterday. It takes something doesn't it when the RSPB writes to its membership about deregulation.

A sad state of affairs and another consequence of moving away from sensible and forward-thinking EU protection guidance / laws. Another thank you to Brexit.

Reaction to the mini 'budget' link below.

https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/rspb-england/posts/minibudget/?from=morelikethis

 

More deregulation to come too reading Kwarteng today. What will be left of a civil society or a balance between industry and the environment?

 

One thing is for sure and that is the Tory party will be voted out comprehensively in the next election (something perhaps they even wish might happen so they can blame the next administration for struggling to deal with the last appalling 12 plus years of their chaos).

 

 

Indeed! You only need to read "Brittania Unchained" to see the miserable dystopian future Kwarteng and Truss have longed to inflict upon the country. This is going to be a brutal 2 years. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we build is also a problem.

I will accept that this is just one anecdotal example but a mini estate was built behind my parents house. It is made up of 5 bedroom detached homes with double garages. There's not a single family in any of the 13 houses, just older couples with huge new homes. Then there's three tiny 'affordable' (280k a pop now) three beds with tiny gardens which all hold families of four.

Now I understand the market case for it, but tbh, you could have had about 25 decent sized family homes on that plot, with a couple of smaller bungalows for retirées or appartements for young couples/single parents/divorcés/single adults.

The infrastructure isn't lacking, and theres decent sized schools in the area. 

We need a more aggressive planning regime which is based on needs and we need a state which appreciates that the need to protect the environment and the natural world has created market distortions which require an active intervention into those markets.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1902 said:

What we build is also a problem.

I will accept that this is just one anecdotal example but a mini estate was built behind my parents house. It is made up of 5 bedroom detached homes with double garages. There's not a single family in any of the 13 houses, just older couples with huge new homes. Then there's three tiny 'affordable' (280k a pop now) three beds with tiny gardens which all hold families of four.

Now I understand the market case for it, but tbh, you could have had about 25 decent sized family homes on that plot, with a couple of smaller bungalows for retirées or appartements for young couples/single parents/divorcés/single adults.

The infrastructure isn't lacking, and theres decent sized schools in the area. 

We need a more aggressive planning regime which is based on needs and we need a state which appreciates that the need to protect the environment and the natural world has created market distortions which require an active intervention into those markets.

Spot on! There simply is nothing that passes as any kind of genuine strategy for housing the people of this country. For years all we have had is a rancid, totally ineffective abandonment to the idea that market forces will magically resolve all the massive problems we face. As your example highlights, that simply exacerbates those problems.

There is no foreseeable future in which the majority of young people in this country will be able to afford their own homes until very late into their adulthood. Thus, it seems manifestly obvious to me that we need fundamentally to rethink housing strategy by moving to one centred on a policy of ensuring secure affordable housing through the provision of social housing and reform of the rental market. Much of European housing strategy works perfectly well without privileging home-ownership because it ensures renters have long term secure rights, affordable controlled rents, and requirements that landlords maintain their properties to high standards (e.g. Germany). With that sort of security many people find no need to burden themselves with ball and chain mortgages. We need to move from an obsession with home ownership to a policy founded on ensuring security of housing rights. Worth noting too that our current housing stock provides more than enough bedrooms to house every single individual in the country. An imaginative government would note that fact and consider ways in which it might incentivise redistribution of the housing stock to reduce the requirement for undesirable mass building projects and the costs to the environment this incurs (again, your example highlights this issue).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1902 said:

What we build is also a problem.

I will accept that this is just one anecdotal example but a mini estate was built behind my parents house. It is made up of 5 bedroom detached homes with double garages. There's not a single family in any of the 13 houses, just older couples with huge new homes. Then there's three tiny 'affordable' (280k a pop now) three beds with tiny gardens which all hold families of four.

Now I understand the market case for it, but tbh, you could have had about 25 decent sized family homes on that plot, with a couple of smaller bungalows for retirées or appartements for young couples/single parents/divorcés/single adults.

The infrastructure isn't lacking, and theres decent sized schools in the area. 

We need a more aggressive planning regime which is based on needs and we need a state which appreciates that the need to protect the environment and the natural world has created market distortions which require an active intervention into those markets.

Its not just the market that detemines what is built where- The local council is permitted to have general or site specific planning policies that govern house numbers, types and density , or guide developers in a preferred direction if a degree of flexibility is called for. So in your example if the local authority felt strongly that land in its area was being  used inefficiently it could have policies that demand more.  

On your srcond point you say that we need a more aggressive planning regime. By this I assume you mean one that is more pro- (housing) development.  That's not going to be locally  popular pretty much anywhere so the current compromise is that a local authority is required to prove it has a credible plan for meeting projected housing need over the next five years and if it cannot proposals are more likely to be granted (locally or centrally).   So the  council is incentivised to plan (and grant permissions)for schemes that are  little more than they would like as to do otherwise would result in even more development.

Would you go further than this?

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is what happens when you allow the population to increase rapidly at the same time as more marriages ending in divorce and splintering of family sizes into fewer people per household, and then top it off with energy policies based on climate change "science" (lol!) resulting in said housing becoming unaffordable on an average wage. We are in this mess because we are no longer focussing on getting the basics right, but more concerned about getting the 'optics' right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Well this is what happens when you allow the population to increase rapidly at the same time as more marriages ending in divorce and splintering of family sizes into fewer people per household, and then top it off with energy policies based on climate change "science" (lol!) resulting in said housing becoming unaffordable on an average wage. We are in this mess because we are no longer focussing on getting the basics right, but more concerned about getting the 'optics' right.

The selling off of social housing has become a long term disaster. The fact that hardly any have been built/replaced was a terrible decision and putting  housing purely at the whim of market forces was also.

Other than an enlarging population here are a few genuine reasons why housing is a mess. Genuinely affordable housing is not being built. A lot of housing is aimed purely for investment purposes which is left empty. The buy to let market has skewed the market badly. Multiple home ownership. Land banking. I'm sure people will come up with others.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...