UKC

Hi all

Our local council has plans to allow development that could irreversibly change the size and character of the only green space in our little community of ordinary folk. One of the residents has just started an online petition. If you feel like we do about about stuff like this, could you take a moment to sign the petition and pass the link on to other like minded folk. We believe it's time that ordinary communities get more say in what happens in their locality. The Localism Act 2012 claims to be supporting that too. Here's the link to the petition:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/69147

In reply to philpdr:

Done

In reply to philpdr:
Our area did better, they found some archaic law that it was common land belonging to the people in perpetuity, and took it to the courts ( which our own council refused to accept, defended it and lost)

Ironic really, as the council wanted to use the common land to build a new court on

Alas , as ever, a word of warning, we ' lost' financially, in that whilst all that went on we were paying their wages, and had to raise our own court costs, and of course the locals had to pay the council's costs to fight it's own people's rights!

(There really should be a way of making these irresponsible ' servants' personally financially responsible for court costs when they are found to be stubbornly defending the indefensible , against their own community, they might think twice then)

In reply to philpdr:

Done that for you.

Building more new houses is not the solution in my opinion. Green spaces are essential. Good luck with the campaign.

In reply to sbc_10:


What is your solution to our housing supply problem?

jk

In reply to philpdr:

Signed. All the best with it.

In reply to philpdr:

Signed =)

In reply to jkarran:

(Not wanting to detract from the threads original purpose but since you ask .....)

Reduce (almost eliminate) the number of holiday homes (second homes). Encourage caravanning and Winnebago hire as a substitute, and by encourage, I mean a tax incentive, that usually gets the wealthy compliant.

<probably won't work....but hey ho!, its a suggestion>

In reply to philpdr:

Where exactly is Cow Field?
A pointer on google maps would do.

Let's be honest now, you're hardly short of green fields within a few 100 yards walk down that way!

In reply to sbc_10:



Eh? So, what is the solution to the generally accepted need for 250k homes per year?

In reply to Indy:

Given tax breaks for developers to develop (financially) less attractive sites due to them having to carry out a clean up of any industry spoils would be a start.

In reply to sbc_10:




Here's another suggestion YOU go live in a Winnebago but how your going to be able to afford to hire/buy a £100k for a basic model to £250k for a top ender is going to be interesting. How are you going "almost eliminate" second homes or is your next pronouncement that youra secret fully paid up member of the Robert Mugabe fan club?

In reply to Timmd:

Would be a drop in the ocean compared to need. A friends 26 year old son is earning about 30k yet needs a minimum 42k deposit for a 35% share on a pokey 1 bed flat that would need a 2hr daily commute to work each day. Due to his current rent costs 42k is never going to happen.

Dig up the green belt I say!

In reply to Indy:

That's mind boggling. Is that in London?

In reply to jkarran:


How about an end to population growth? They say we need more young people to balance the ever larger numbers of older people. If we have many more innovations in health and medicine, extending lifespans further, we're going to need even more young people, and then they're going to get even older yadayadayda etc.

Estimates have about 300,000 long term empty houses and another estimated 300,000 unused "flats above shops". That only buys 2.5 years respite from the destruction of green land, but it's a start - http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/

If we can't stop population growth, then perhaps its time for some Sim City 2000 style Arcoloy building. Otherwise our descendants are all going to end up living in something that resembles Trantor.

In reply to wintertree:

What's Trantor?

In Jeremy Paxman's book The English he suggests that peoples' desire to have gardens will lead to the destruction of the green belt in England.

In reply to Timmd:


A planet from Isaac Asimov's Foundation series that ended up entirely covered in buildings and structures, with the oceans tamed as algae breeding tanks for the giant population and without any open, green spaces.

That's not the depressing part. The depressing bit is that it was the paperwork HQ of the galactic empire. An entire planet of bureaucracy.

In reply to wintertree:

Population growth isn't from my understanding the main issue its the fact that single person households has and is continuing to rocket.

In reply to Timmd:

Where else!

In reply to Indy:


That rather depends on your timescales; unless we drift to a world where most people have 2, then 3, then 4 houses etc., the single person household thing is just going to bring the inevitable forwards a decade or so.

In reply to Indy:
Good point, I have a feeling that the south east bias of the economy could do with some correction/altering too, that the housing situation could be a symptom of something deeper.

There's a Dragon's Den type guy from the South East who makes his money by finding and investing in companies in the North of England and parts of the country which get overlooked, he does pretty well from it, and the companies benefit too.

In reply to Indy:


Blimey...a bit harsh considering that I am suggesting people do not own more property than they have arses to sit on.
Balance the need for second home against the need for any home at all.
The fact I don't have to hand <which will shut my speculation up> is the number of unoccupied houses in the UK that do not have full time residents.
That might be an interesting and informative number when compared to 250 thousand 'new' homes needed.

<"Robert Mugabe Fan club"....deary me!!...that forums for ya>

In reply to sbc_10:

My responses harshness if that's what it is is because your argument is predicated on the politics of envy. I don't have/want/need a second home so why should anyone else? Taking that argument to its logical conclusion then you should ban personal cars and put every one on public transport for the good of society.

So what your saying now is that if you go off on a years sabbatical leaving your home empty you think the Govt should be able to apply to the court's and have your home confiscated from you and reallocated to a more needy set of people? Also there's a house not far from here with trees growing in it.... Who is going to pay to do it up?

In reply to Indy:


That is not a "logical conclusion".

A human needs shelter and a secure living space far more than they need a car. Houses are far more fundamental a need. Strike 1.

The supply of houses is artificially limited by constraints on space and planning restrictions. Cars, not so much. Strike 2.

Artificially restricted supply is pushing the cost of housing far beyond the means of many people who need it, with the average house cost now roughly ten times the average national wage. Serviceable cars can be got for 5% of the national average wage. This makes one almost unobtainable for many people, the other not so much. Strike 3.

It's disingenuous to invoke "politics of envy" or "Mugabe" when it comes to liming second houses; consider an alternative precedent, the rationing of food during war time on the grounds that every person has a bare minimum need.

In reply to Indy:


The UK population rose by 400,000 last year, about half of that from net immigration. This isn't the only year where the stats have been of this order, its risen by 5 million since 2001. How can that possibly not be a major contributing factor to the housing shortage and consequent house price inflation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27972335