An Englishmans house is his castle.......

[Ayahuasca]

NDA said:

Ayahuasca said:

I think you would be pushed to find any locals who did not object to new developments in their back yard. The 1,800 families who will live in the new houses have to live somewhere, most people just prefer it was not anywhere near them.

It's the lack of any infrastructure that concerns the locals. No parking available at the rail stations now - how will they cope with maybe 1,000 new commuters? The schools locally are totally full, as are the doctors surgeries. The little lane that would run from this development to the nearest rail station is single track... etc etc

The houses themselves are not a massive issue. But the lack of any infrastructure really is an issue.

Chicken and egg. Nobody is going to invest in spare capacity (parking, schools, roads, doctors, etc) until there is a need for it. Eventually the village town will adjust to the new normal.

[Halb]

NDA said:

That's outrageous.

A similar thing has happened near where I live. Dunsfold Aerodrome was originally farmland 'borrowed' during the war and supposedly required to return to farmland. 1,800 homes are due to be built there - 100% local opposition and zero infrastructure for such a hideous new town in the middle of beautiful countryside. No school places locally, tiny village rail stations with no parking after about 9am... narrow country lanes... I could go on.

The developers bank the cash and move on. Leaving the rest of us to deal with the mess.

Big money usually always trumps the lil guy.

[Fat Fairy]

Ayahuasca said:

I think you would be pushed to find any locals who did not object to new developments in their back yard. The 1,800 families who will live in the new houses have to live somewhere, most people just prefer it was not anywhere near them.

That would be nice if the homes were affordable. What's the betting they will be?

FF

[Starfighter]

My dog has a similar expression when found asleep on the sofa.

[NDA]

Ayahuasca said:

Chicken and egg. Nobody is going to invest in spare capacity (parking, schools, roads, doctors, etc) until there is a need for it. Eventually the village town will adjust to the new normal.

And that's the thing - nobody really wants this 'new normal' pushed on them by the developers. I realise the development companies are desperate to make a profit, but it's at our expense.

I can't see how my local rail station could invest in spare capacity - there's already a waiting list of several years for a car park season ticket. This demand hasn't been answered by an investment in spare capacity.

[ben5575]

Sounds like you need to buy a field and turn it into a carpark.
Or vote out the Councillors who approve the scheme.
Or vote for a change in government.

Part of the problem is that the planning system hasn't caught up with austerity. Spatial planning is (very crudely) deciding what type of use should go where and to ensure that the infrastructure is there the support it. The latter is (or generally was) the role of the public sector.

Sadly LA's now have to decide whether to feed the elderly, safeguard children or build a road with their reducing pot of money. If they want the road or school built, they only way they can afford it is to have it paid for by developers or more importantly, from the new homes bonus and council tax they will receive from the 1800 homes. This also helps to feed the elderly, safeguard the children etc etc.

[AstonZagato]

Ayahuasca said:

NDA said:

Ayahuasca said:

I think you would be pushed to find any locals who did not object to new developments in their back yard. The 1,800 families who will live in the new houses have to live somewhere, most people just prefer it was not anywhere near them.

It's the lack of any infrastructure that concerns the locals. No parking available at the rail stations now - how will they cope with maybe 1,000 new commuters? The schools locally are totally full, as are the doctors surgeries. The little lane that would run from this development to the nearest rail station is single track... etc etc

The houses themselves are not a massive issue. But the lack of any infrastructure really is an issue.

Chicken and egg. Nobody is going to invest in spare capacity (parking, schools, roads, doctors, etc) until there is a need for it. Eventually the village town will adjust to the new normal.

Shouldn't the developers be forced to build the infrastructure at the same time as the houses. A school. A GP surgery. Widen the roads to the nearest A road. Extend the station car park and the station platform.

I live near Cambridge. There are thousands of new homes being built. The roads into Cambridge are already at a standstill. The trains into London are already full. The station car park is already full. The schools are full. The GPs are full. What are these new people going to do until the infrastructure arrives (if it ever does).

[anonymous-user]

The real trick, as discovered by our local honest traveling folk, is to buy 2 fields straddling a council boundary build a 10ft wall around it, build half a dozen stty houses in there and park a truck across the entrance. Obviously both councils will say it's the other ones problem for a decade, then one council will take a stand then you can hit them with human rights st for a few more years then finally once you're locked up for man slaughter, you can find the time to apply for retrospective planning, be denied, appeal and win. Easy.

[ben5575]

How much does that school cost? What type of school? Will the houses have primary or secondary school aged kids? How many kids? And that road. Does it have problems already? How much does that new development impact on that road? How much of the road? The junction outside it? The lane leading to it? The trunk road supplying that? The trains are over crowded already? Trains to where? Where do the people in the houses work? How many will use the train? Or the car park?

Sorry. I'm obviously being facetious. The point is how much should/can the developer be taxed for delivering much needed housing when nobody else is? Successive governments have failed to build houses, so it's left to the private sector. Tax them too much and they'll stop building as they (and neither would you or anybody else) do it for free.

If you owned a 6 acre housing site on the edge of your village, would you give it to a developer for free so that he can afford to pay for all of the above or would you do what every other landowner does and take the one opportunity you have to make £ms in your life?

The lack of road/rail/gp/school capacity and housing supply is not the fault of the developer, it is a significantly bigger issue that 'society' needs to deal with. It's just that the issue is too big and complicated for a DM headline, so it's easy to blame bad bd developers. Sure they absolutely have a role to play and a responsibility, but they ain't the root cause and only part of the solution.

Ha, wandering way OT now, and a general rant not directed at anybody in particular.

Edited by ben5575 on Thursday 21st September 00:00

[AstonZagato]

Councils already require developers to build a proportion of low-cost houses. Larger developments do also sometimes require schools (though the ones built around Cambridge are already full because they underestimated demand).

Re-zoning agricultural land (say, £10k an acre) to development land (don't know but, say, £750k an acre) creates a huge windfall gain to the landowner. If the requirement on the developer is to spend, say £200k an acre in infrastructure it isn't going to do much to the developer or the sale of land to developers. The developer will now not pay the landowner £750k an acre, they'll pay £550k. The landowner has taken the hit but still has a windfall gain of £510k - a 5000% gain. Not really going to put you off, is it?

[Europa1]

Ayahuasca said:

PositronicRay said:

Pair of chancers.

Clive Owen. Clive Owen.

Bravo!

That was a great series.

[BlackLabel]

“A couple flouted planning regulations by converting their garage into an extra home - and then hid it behind fences and a fake garage door. “

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5381533/Co...

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

“A couple flouted planning regulations by converting their garage into an extra home - and then hid it behind fences and a fake garage door. “

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5381533/Co...

fking idiots.

[Murph7355]

garyhun said:

fking idiots.

I'd fancy my chances in a game of hide n seek with them though

[cossy400]

Would be interesting to see inside considering that a garage isn't overly spacious is it.

[Halb]

BlackLabel said:

“A couple flouted planning regulations by converting their garage into an extra home - and then hid it behind fences and a fake garage door. “

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5381533/Co...

Brilliant, very ingenious, points for creativity.

[Halb]

Damn man, where do you live? Great time to vote the fkers out.

[Halb]

TVR Moneypit said:

You'd think so wouldn't you?

The problem is, the majority of the County is ex pit villages, where anything in a blue tie is the work of the devil, and where your local Labour MP or Councillor could be the next Jimmy Saville and still get voted back in.

Which is why all of this has happened in one of the few very small pockets of blue in an otherwise 'red 'till they're dead' County.

Sounds like you need a local group. One sprouted up near me in Wigan, COmmunity action party, they got seats. Personally I don't believe in red/blue gang bks, and will always look at the individuals, if local feeling is strong, stuff can be done.