What could you say....

[sasguru]

So to conclude :

We're all doomed I tell yer!

[expat]

Builders found it hard to get planning permisson due to local councils rejecting proposals. Basically people were objecting to building in their back yards. The government eventually changed the law, or regulations, to make it harder for councils to object, and to push through new developments. I know of one case where the council refused, so another application was made in another area, that was refused, so the government overruled them.

Another problem is that it can now takea long time to get planning permission e.g. years rather than months. I don't know why it is worse than 20 years ago, but it is.

BTW you seem to have the same problem reading as MailMan. I said "presided over underinvestment in house building" not "underinvested in house building". There's no suggestion that the government were building houses.

You have a bit of a problem yourself: I quoted what you said precisely because I had read it. And that was exactly my point: the government do not build houses (except council houses, roughly speaking), so what, I asked, did it mean to say that they presided over underinvestment in house building? In what sense (I meant) did they "preside".

Your answer both makes sense and addresses my question (whether I agree with it or not) but the accompanying insult doesn't.

[zathras]

In what sense (I meant) did they "preside".

The government can control building in many ways. The first is fiscal. To take an example. Consider VAT is allowable on new builds but not on improvements. So what this does is encourage the demolishing of old buildings and replacing them with new. This indeed can lead to the situation that an old building is demolished and a replica built in it's place!

In addition new infrastructure. New Roads and rail links mean that more people are likely to live in an area. Take Norwich (2 hrs rail journey from the Square mile. they have apartments going to £250K-£300K. The new flats are a stones throw from the Railway Station.

Planning policy can also lead to or restrict building.

So the government can control the level of building without actually doing the building itself. The regulatory and fiscal regime can be used to control any activity the government wishes.

[sasguru]

Hasn't the government been encouraging development on "brownfield" i.e. inner city sites? That is certainly true in in London. In addition a certain proportion of all new builds must be affordable. Sounds eminently sensible to me. It has ensured plenty of previously run down areas in London have been regenerated e.g. Shoreditch where I live.

[zathras]

Hasn't the government been encouraging development on "brownfield" i.e. inner city sites? That is certainly true in in London. In addition a certain proportion of all new builds must be affordable. Sounds eminently sensible to me. It has ensured plenty of previously run down areas in London have been regenerated e.g. Shoreditch where I live.

Well I wish they would hurry up and start with the building whatever they are going to on Queensbridge Road (by the Regents Canal). Looks like we have the wonders of large lorries as well while they finish preparing the site.

[Fungus]

You have a bit of a problem yourself: I quoted what you said precisely because I had read it. And that was exactly my point: the government do not build houses (except council houses, roughly speaking), so what, I asked, did it mean to say that they presided over underinvestment in house building? In what sense (I meant) did they "preside".

Your answer both makes sense and addresses my question (whether I agree with it or not) but the accompanying insult doesn't.

Really? I merely made a factual comment on your response. Here is your original response:

Sorry, I'm having trouble grasping that bit. They "presided over underinvestment in house building"? I didn't know it was the Govt that built Wimpey houses. Or are you condemning the Govt for not building enough council houses?

Or are you just taking something that possibly happened and might have had bad consequences, and blaming it on the Govt?

You are indeed having trouble with the meaning of "presided over". Look it up. It does not necessarily mean that the government built houses. Unless you think that local government act independently of the government.

I recently wrote to the local council to ask about various issues. In each case I received a response along the following lines: "We do that because government tell us to do that".

That is why we have had massive council tax rises over the last few years i.e. due to New Lier.

Fungus

[Fungus]

Hasn't the government been encouraging development on "brownfield" i.e. inner city sites? That is certainly true in in London. In addition a certain proportion of all new builds must be affordable. Sounds eminently sensible to me. It has ensured plenty of previously run down areas in London have been regenerated e.g. Shoreditch where I live.

Yes, I actually think that some of the New Lier approach to new build makes a lot of sense. Though it has taken them long enough to get moving (sic). They are trying to increase the number of flats, and re-use existing sites. That is good. They are also giving huge financial incentives to local councils to demolish existing housing stock, and build new houses. That is sometimes very bad, because councils are encouraged to demolish good houses, to claim government money.

Another worrying aspect is that the government ignored housing for years, and are now rushing to build. In consequence houses are being built in areas where maybe it would be best not to build. I'm thinking in particular of flood plains, especially in North Kent, which is liable to flooding from the Thames.

There's also been sqealing from many bodies about the quality of the new builds. I don't know if that is justified or not.

However wasn't the development of Shoreditch part of the development of the East End by the London Docklands Development Corporation, which was set up by Heseltine, under Thatcher?

Fungus

[vista]

A lot of what you say is true

This is utter b 0ll0cks, each of the claims can be comprehensively demolished if eyes are opened to reality.


A politicians trick is telling us what we want to hear our crime is beliveing them without subjecting their claims to scrutiny.

[OwlHoot]

Very good, Numpty

Speaking personally, I've had fewer economic shocks under Labour than the Tories, although obviously paid more tax. Labour has been better at "smoothing" the economy. Let's see if they can continue the balancing act.

Another thing, although I say it through gritted teeth, is that the UK literally can't afford to be any more economically "rigorous", for want of a better word, than the Yanks. Otherwise (AIUI) sterling goes up and our exports, what there still are of them, (especially banking services, which this country relies on more than ever) go to hell in a handcart.

The snag is, despite its large deficits, the US with its low taxes and so on is probably much better able than the UK to recover from a downturn, and would leave us floundering in their wake unable to follow suit.

[OwlHoot]

Supposedly the reason it now takes so long to get planning permission is there is a lack of people to work on planning approvals.

Probably because most recently created public sector jobs involve no more than walking about clutching bits of paper, or sitting at a PC screen looking busy, whereas planning officers do at least need the rudiments of training in architecture or town planning or whatever.

Doesn't help that as a career it can be as prone to sudden death as working on the roads or railway tracks.

Does that refer to the perils of venturing into one of Prescott's new doll's houses before the glue has dried, or are you implying that building developers bump off recalcitrant planning officers?