It is quite true developers have never had it better, But that is because price of land with no planning permission 10,000 but with it becomes 1,000,000. That only means one thing. There is very great demand for land with planning permission.
Mr Prescotts half million new homes is planned over several years and has not even got started. Where I live there is a similar plan for 5,000 homes in ten years which has been a plan for 20 years without any of them being built. An example of how come we have a housing shortage.
Alongside this plan for development which no one has quite sorted out yet are cast-iron planning rules forbidding anything to be built. Despite the council having been obliged to obtain a consultants report to confirm that their plan allowed for sustainable development. The consultants concluded that the plan for the countryside was about as sustainable as Rover. If you stop any development in the countryside then before you know it no one is able to work there, no one who is not independantly wealthy is able to live there, and traditional rural activity has totally gone to pot. All utterlu unsustainable and reducing the countryside to a park. Only thing which allows farmers to afford to live there is the farm subsidy.
Public services are not at bursting point. They are deliberately minimally funded as a matter of policy to safe money. It has little to do with how much demand there is. What makes you think immigrants are are a liablity for public services anyway? They are most likely to be young adults, who are least likely to get ill and best able to work and live in crummy housing.
I agree they are building stupidly small properties. Partly because they want them to be affordable, which means tiny. Partly because they are trying to squeeze them in. Mostly to be affordable. Stupidly ignoring that if you built some bigger ones it would still reduce the property squeeze and help stabilise prices.
Back to where I live, the council has duly made its case why the area is outstandingly beautiful countryside and can not possibly be built on. ******. Every single council is doing exactly the same thing. Some really have a case, others do not. That housing target? It could all be built in the countryside in ones and twos and would be lost without destroying the landscape. Might help some of us to actually stay living there to keep the place tidy. I am perfectly happy for the council to get on with its plan for town expansion as well. But I want them to let the rest of us get on with living in the countryside.
Mr Prescotts half million new homes is planned over several years and has not even got started. Where I live there is a similar plan for 5,000 homes in ten years which has been a plan for 20 years without any of them being built. An example of how come we have a housing shortage.
Alongside this plan for development which no one has quite sorted out yet are cast-iron planning rules forbidding anything to be built. Despite the council having been obliged to obtain a consultants report to confirm that their plan allowed for sustainable development. The consultants concluded that the plan for the countryside was about as sustainable as Rover. If you stop any development in the countryside then before you know it no one is able to work there, no one who is not independantly wealthy is able to live there, and traditional rural activity has totally gone to pot. All utterlu unsustainable and reducing the countryside to a park. Only thing which allows farmers to afford to live there is the farm subsidy.
Public services are not at bursting point. They are deliberately minimally funded as a matter of policy to safe money. It has little to do with how much demand there is. What makes you think immigrants are are a liablity for public services anyway? They are most likely to be young adults, who are least likely to get ill and best able to work and live in crummy housing.
I agree they are building stupidly small properties. Partly because they want them to be affordable, which means tiny. Partly because they are trying to squeeze them in. Mostly to be affordable. Stupidly ignoring that if you built some bigger ones it would still reduce the property squeeze and help stabilise prices.
Back to where I live, the council has duly made its case why the area is outstandingly beautiful countryside and can not possibly be built on. ******. Every single council is doing exactly the same thing. Some really have a case, others do not. That housing target? It could all be built in the countryside in ones and twos and would be lost without destroying the landscape. Might help some of us to actually stay living there to keep the place tidy. I am perfectly happy for the council to get on with its plan for town expansion as well. But I want them to let the rest of us get on with living in the countryside.
