Loading Notifications...

The only way to protect a view is to own it

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 ClimberEd 16 Nov 2020

Or something along those lines.

The right to a view is not enshrined in English law (in fact, quite the opposite.)

TLDR. What would be necessary to prevent all housing development on greenfield sites, and restrict it to brownfield only? It seems a travesty of planning to me that it is allowed

Edit: (now I can type without waking my other half.)

Essentially as far as I can work out every small town and village - at least in the South - is being blighted by vast housing development, or it's potential. Everywhere I have dug into and looked at the neighbourhood plans (probably 10 different ones) they identify brownfield sights but planning is then granted for multiple housing on greenfield sites. This IMHO, is ruining the urban/semi rural/rural balance (and if you don't agree with ruining you can't argue with changing) and I cannot fathom why planning allows it.

Post edited at 06:13
Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

IIRC brownfield is more expensive to (re)develop than greenfield. Guessing here, but it's probably more expensive and more hassle because redeveloping is more complicated than just chewing up a field.

So you can't really blame the developers whose aim is merely to make profit. If they can make their money with less hassle (i.e. less risk) then that's what they'll do.

But you're absolutely right, it's totally crazy to allow greenfield without doing the brownfield first.

Report
 ClimberEd 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

Interesting. Given that developers (generally) make significant profit there should be more than enough headroom to shift that.

Report
 Babika 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

It isn't just the South - happening elsewhere as well.

Here the parish and District councils oppose the spread of greenfield development and its usually overturned on appeal as the planning laws have been systematically weakened - in developers favour - in the last few years. 

Pretty depressing  I just hope the developers catch a cold if people stop buying the properties marketed at ludicrous prices round here eventually. 

Report
 RobAJones 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Why would developers target brown field sites at the moment ? Currently, they stand a chance of getting permission for sensitive/green sites, that tend to be more profitable. If someone comes along and does what you suggest (which I agree with) they can then develop the brown field sites.

Report
In reply to Babika:

> It isn't just the South - happening elsewhere as well.

> Here the parish and District councils oppose the spread of greenfield development and its usually overturned on appeal as the planning laws have been systematically weakened - in developers favour - in the last few years. 

From my experience as local councillor, the councils legal department just didn't have the money to fight massive national housing companies in court. They couldn't afford the risk of losing and also they just don't often have the expertise. 

So the cases they tend to push the whole distance are those against average Joe over relatively minor planning breaches, whilst the housing companies destroy a few more fields. 

It's the same with the whole saga of housing companies building access roads to a given standard before they are adopted by the county council etc.. the council can't afford to fight it and the housing companies don't care and just walk away. 

Report
 SteveX 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Whats got you ticking, is someone wanting to build on your view?

The house you live in, did you select it because it was built on a Brownfield site?

Report
 ClimberEd 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Babika:

> It isn't just the South - happening elsewhere as well.

> Here the parish and District councils oppose the spread of greenfield development and its usually overturned on appeal as the planning laws have been systematically weakened - in developers favour - in the last few years. 

> Pretty depressing  I just hope the developers catch a cold if people stop buying the properties marketed at ludicrous prices round here eventually. 

I guessed it might be, but I've only looked at different areas in the south so didn't want to presume it was also the case all over the country.

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

1500 houses have/being built where I live, all on farmland or golf course. Because it’s in the edge of Wigan and very close to M6 (and not too far to M61), great for commuters, hence expensive housing........and higher council tax bands which is why many folk think planning goes through. 

Report
 ClimberEd 16 Nov 2020
In reply to SteveX:

> Whats got you ticking, is someone wanting to build on your view?

> The house you live in, did you select it because it was built on a Brownfield site?

If you really want to know I'm trying to buy a house that is on the edge of a village, and I'd like to try and ensure it is still on the edge of a village in 20 years time.  In the 3 or 4 areas I know well, and the other 4 or 5 I have looked at in detail the boundaries have remained fairly constant over my lifetime (the past 40 years) but recently the cracks are beginning and looking at planning it is becomingly increasingly easy to build out into surrounding countryside. 

Report
 wercat 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

I thought this was going to be about databases

Report
 SteveX 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Thinking of a move ourselves;

  • Buy by the sea, unlikely to build on the sea.
  • Look at local development plans, can give you a longer term idea. I know in our area, one side of the valley is set out in the strategic framework not to be built on, the view has a value to the wider community.
  • Have lots and lots and lots of money, a bloke I know does own his view.
  • National Park

No you cannot realistically buy a view, I could take you to a place in Lancashire, green belt where there is a house, Million* pound ish, lovely view, bet they did not expect a bloke to come and build his 10 million* pound house in the view.

* UKC made up numbers, but the two houses do exist.

Report
 nufkin 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

>  I'd like to try and ensure it is still on the edge of a village in 20 years time.

I imagine most people moving to a village would feel the same, but the only way to stop expansion would be to obviate the incentive or need for it, locally and nationally, which is probably beyond the scope of council planners

Report
 Babika 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

If you want to protect a view you could do what I did 2 houses ago. Buy opposite a river and floodplain that floods every few years. And next door to a centuries old village churchyard. 

We had trouble selling it though as people kept worrying about the church bells and flooding! Can't have everything....

Report
 David Riley 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

The only way to halt building over the countryside is to stop the population increasing.

Report
 gethin_allen 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

The big reason I can see for building on greenfield sites is what you can get for the houses at the end.

Brown field sites are more likely to be in cheap areas. Building a house in a cheap area will cost as much building a house in a nice area but at the end of it your house in the nice area is sold for twice as much.

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

Major house builders prefer to build on greenfield sites, the developments are usually more popular and cheaper to build.

Major house builders have donated heavily to the Conservative Party, successfully lobbying for major relaxation in local planning powers.

Government is mandating local authorities to build to meet government set housing targets, which cannot be met from brownfield sites alone. As an example, Greater Manchester, the ONS revised the population projections down, the GM Combined Authority asked government if they could reduced their housing target based on this reduction, therefore build on less greenfield land, they we told that they could not.

I always have a bit of laugh, as Tories in the shires hate these policies, yet keep electing the government that is pushing them on them.

Report
 Timmd 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> If you really want to know I'm trying to buy a house that is on the edge of a village, and I'd like to try and ensure it is still on the edge of a village in 20 years time.  In the 3 or 4 areas I know well, and the other 4 or 5 I have looked at in detail the boundaries have remained fairly constant over my lifetime (the past 40 years) but recently the cracks are beginning and looking at planning it is becomingly increasingly easy to build out into surrounding countryside. 

Buying a high up house with views which stretch might need to be a plan, so that even after 20 years you can still see out to any countryside?

Post edited at 09:56
Report
 neilh 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

The opposite side of the coin. There is a national housing shortage which has a detrimental effect on younger people gettign into the housing market. The cumulative effect on this on the natioanl shortage of houses is unreal...look it up. We desperately need to build more houses as it is creating a generational divide.

It is a traversty that  people do not recognise this.

And if I had the choice I would always buy a house on greefield. After all why would I have second best on some former industrial site probably stuffed with chemicals and good knows what.

Post edited at 10:00
Report
 john arran 16 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> And if I had the choice I would always buy a house on greenfield. After all why would I have second best on some former industrial site probably stuffed with chemicals and good knows what.

... which is precisely why such a choice usually should not be available, as long as there are plentiful non-greenfield alternatives.

Report
 jkarran 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Babika:

> If you want to protect a view you could do what I did 2 houses ago. Buy opposite a river and floodplain that floods every few years. And next door to a centuries old village churchyard. 

Allotments are another pretty good bet. Not open countryside but not someone else's back yard either.

jk

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

A quick story of unintended consequences.

My mum lives on the edge of very nice village north of Lancaster. They have known for a long time that there was a threat of houses being built in the field next to their house and it wasn't a surprise a few years ago when the land was included in the local development plan.

This was followed by a planning application for five large executive homes. She asked me if I would have a look at the application; I did and picked up on the fact that the flood risk assessment was a work of fiction, ignoring the well known flooding issues at one end of the field. Various objections were lodged on this basis and the application was withdrawn.

Another application was submitted for two houses, avoiding the area of the site with flooding issues. This was approved. My mum was happy with two houses, rather than five; however with two houses the scheme was not viable, because of the cost of the land. Nothing has been built.

There is a rumour going around the village, that it's most famous resident, who is worth tens of millions, is looking for a plot for new house and this is his favoured spot. My mum may have avoided various BMW driving management types moving in next door and instead got the Gypsy King, Tyson Fury as a neighbour.

Report
 Phil79 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

I do a fair bit of work looking at developing sites for house builders, both greenfield and brownfield (among other things within civil & geotechnical engineering industry). 

Greenfield sites are nearly always more simple to build out, as there are just less problems and less risk in the ground, and therefore land prices of greenfield tend to be more expensive (at least on the face of it).  

On a brownfield site, you'll typically have to think about and cost in demolition, enabling works, recycling aggregate, earthworks, investigation and remediation of contamination, poor ground conditions, drainage issues, various planning conditions, piling etc, before even getting out of the ground on build.

On a greenfield site, you might only need to strip the top soil and do a bit of earthworks, and you can start putting in foundations. 

The flip side of that is most big developers are pretty switched on when it comes to looking at these 'abnormal' costs, and will typically negotiate these off the price of any brownfield site.

There are tax breaks in place for redeveloping brownfield sites, to encourage this over greenfield, but greenfield is still the easy choice.

Also profit. All the big house builders are very very cost focused and will do everything to keep costs low and profits high. Even more so on a brownfield site. Persimmon for example, a 30% profit margin is typical, on a turnover of £3.6b last year!

Land prices are very high in the UK, so to achieve that kind of profit, they are streamlining building costs and squeezing as many plots as possible on any given site.

Essentially, you end up with incredible expensive new homes, of poor quality, on tiny plots. Slums of the future.

The whole planning system needs overhaul really, to focus development on brownfield land, mandate bigger size houses/plots, better quality houses. House builders could and would still build, just at less ridiculous profits.            

Post edited at 11:30
Report
 ClimberEd 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

I don't believe there is a shortage of housing. It is a simplistic fallacy thrust upon the general public as it is easy to understand and allows more housing to be built. There is an idea that more houses = lower prices but that is not the case. House prices have been driven predominantly by cheap debt for those with access to it, not by a lack of stock. 

The problem is a lack of houses that people on lower incomes can afford to buy. 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/tackling-the-uk-housing-crisis/

Report
 ClimberEd 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Phil79:

Thanks for that insight. Your comment:

> Essentially, you end up with incredible expensive new homes, of poor quality, on tiny plots. Slums of the future.

> The whole planning system needs overhaul really, to focus development on brownfield land, mandate bigger size houses/plots, better quality houses. House builders could and would still build, just at less ridiculous profits.            

Is what concerns me.  

Report
 Geras 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

My Brother in Law was basically blackmailed into buying the farmers feild next door to his property on exactly these grounds. Although the field in question was in green belt and outside the recognised development zone of the village: Farmer x said give me money or else- oh and if it ever gets planning permision I get 50% of the premium of the sale value over farm land. My BIL felt he had no choice if he wished to retain the character of his property so payed up (or rather the bank did).

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

> I don't believe there is a shortage of housing. It is a simplistic fallacy thrust upon the general public as it is easy to understand and allows more housing to be built. There is an idea that more houses = lower prices but that is not the case. House prices have been driven predominantly by cheap debt for those with access to it, not by a lack of stock. 

> The problem is a lack of houses that people on lower incomes can afford to buy. 

Interesting link.

I'm intrigued who is buying all these executive detached houses (that you can just about squeeze a BMW on the drive of)?

Locally there are huge developments going up around Carlisle, which isn't exactly a boom town (although all the houses seem to have a 'study' which could be a home office). However if I had £380k to spend a housing estate on the edge of Carlisle wouldn't be on my wish list.

There's also a lot of house building going on in Cockermouth. There is a need for affordable housing due to high house prices, but many of the new houses aren't by any stretch of the imagination 'affordable'. House prices are high there mainly due to it being essentially a dormitory for Sellafield middle management, (although it is a nice town). Sellafield is running down the numbers of employees over the next few years with contract workers replacing staff, and wages and T&Cs which have been offered over the past couple of years are much less attractive than they were.

I can't help thinking there's a bubble going to burst, at least outside of the South East.

Report
 neilh 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Geras:

Never argue with a farmer, most know the value and price of their land.They run rings round most people.

Post edited at 12:05
Report
In reply to Phil79:

> The whole planning system needs overhaul really, to focus development on brownfield land, mandate bigger size houses/plots, better quality houses. House builders could and would still build, just at less ridiculous profits.            

There is definitely a place for high density, but that place is in urban centres and close to transport infrastructure.

In terms of an overhaul of the planning system. The government have spent the last decade removing the teeth of the planning system, it has been overhauled, but to benefit the profits of the big house builders.

Report
 Phil79 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> I can't help thinking there's a bubble going to burst, at least outside of the South East.

I think while credit is relatively cheap, people are still willing to rack up massive mortgages, and that will keep the market afloat (or at least stagnant while wages and earning multiples slowly catch up with prices). 

Report
 steve taylor 16 Nov 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Allotments are another pretty good bet. Not open countryside but not someone else's back yard either.

> jk

My allotment in Wareham was outside my back garden gate! Planning permission has been requested more than once - it's inevitable that it will be granted at some point.

Report
 Phil79 16 Nov 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> In terms of an overhaul of the planning system. The government have spent the last decade removing the teeth of the planning system, it has been overhauled, but to benefit the profits of the big house builders.

Indeed, along with the regulators that police the system (EA/Local Authorities etc), who have largely been reduced to glorified post boxes.

Report
 Eric9Points 16 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Let's face it. The route cause of the problem is too many people and the further South in England that you travel, the worse it gets.

Covid may change things a little with city dwelling knowledge workers starting to WFH and realising they can live in the country but that will result in more farm land being built on, not less.

Report
 Doug 16 Nov 2020

I wa pleasantly surprised to find that the ground across the road from our flat is considered part of the grounds of the French equivalent of a historic building and zoned as not for building. So we should keep our view for a while as even though the protection could probably be overturned there is plenty of non protected land elsewhere in/around the village

Report
 neilh 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Just goes to show you that we have not been building enough houses of all types.Changes in lifestyle, people living longer, more single people, more split families all leading to higher demand.

Put it this way if there was no demand the houses would not be built.

Report
 Tom V 16 Nov 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

I'm sure that in the event of any boundary disputes, you will step up to the mark on your mum's behalf.

Report
In reply to wercat:

> I thought this was going to be about databases

I thought it was going to be about opinions...

Report
In reply to Ridge:

> Interesting link.

> I'm intrigued who is buying all these executive detached houses (that you can just about squeeze a BMW on the drive of)?

>  However if I had £380k to spend a housing estate on the edge of Carlisle wouldn't be on my wish list.

Agreed. Most buyers with that budget would be looking at one of the nice villages bordering the lakes, Caldbeck for example.

> There's also a lot of house building going on in Cockermouth. There is a need for affordable housing due to high house prices, but many of the new houses aren't by any stretch of the imagination 'affordable'.

The 'affordable' ones on the Strawberry Grange estate have already had backwashing issues with the plumbing due to being built so close to the water table.

> House prices are high there mainly due to it being essentially a dormitory for Sellafield middle management, (although it is a nice town). 

True, but there is a sizable population of people who would probably live in Keswick but find it too pricey.

> I can't help thinking there's a bubble going to burst, at least outside of the South East.

Keeping up with the neighbors seems to be a national pastime, whoever spends the most "wins". When it comes to house prices and affordability there is some serious collective amnesia going on. 

Post edited at 17:54
Report
 ScraggyGoat 16 Nov 2020

I've come to the conclusion that the housing sector wants to make a large chunk of the housing stock disposable.    Build low quality starter housing or even family houses, but throw in freebies, a bit of credit, good energy efficiency and nice looking bathrooms and kitchens, offer to paint it the colour the buyer wants, so that people don't look at the same house second hand but 10 years older. 

Wait twenty years and the houses have problems due to the low build quality or just look tired so buyers aren't interested.......or if a flat complex, the area is on the verge of being a 'sink'.  Its the tax payer of the future who will have to pay up (if there is any public money left) for the regeneration of the town centres and suburbs, that have become down at heel, due to the builders.  

......I've several colleagues who have fallen for the we will buy new mantra, whom wouldn't look at anything else, for many people buying a new house has become a statement of self-worth as much as buying a new car used to be.  I also have several friends whom are stuck in 10-20 year old houses that they are struggling to sell. Essentially they are captive tenants....of the bank. Either having to stay, or having to rent to increasingly less careful tenants. In the process driving the cycle of desirability of the all owned new estate. While friends in more desirable town locations have sold, fearful of longer term trends, to fortify their position in either more up market sub-urban districts, or rural hide-outs.

Ultimately while there is cheap credit, the big builders are competing with existing home-owners, and are a displacing force. 

The housing market doesn't create money, it shifts it around, providing employment, tax take, retail spend, and profits for share-holders (if they don't hang-in too long and get caught by a bust cycle), profit for pension schemes and donations to political parties.

Hence the government, any government is powerless, and even promotes (for example changes to pension pot lump sums) legislation to aid the industry.  The new housing conveyor is too big to fail in Britain while we have a service sector dominated economy. For it to continue you have to have a combination of population growth, increase in sole living, and old housing just becoming worthless and uninhabitable. You watch older housing stock will be branded obsolete by both the government and industry in the forthcoming 'green revolution', to help the conveyor keep turning.  Hence 'no more newt counting'.

Post edited at 18:01
Report
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Many of the new houses don't appear to have many solid (i.e. brick) interior walls. I'm happy to be corrected by someone who is in the know, but all I see is the kingspan type insulation being placed between wooden frames then plaster board going over the top. Is that right?

The finished product looks fine but it can't be very good if you want to install some hefty shelves later on.

Report
 ScraggyGoat 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Normally there is an outer leaf of breeze block, that is then rendered, to keep the weather out and away from the skinny timber frame.  If it isn't tied properly to the internal frame, the brick/breeze block wall can collapse under pressure changes due to wind......which is what happened to a couple of Edinburgh schools.

But for true efficiency try South American style, concrete pillars on all corners, gaps between filled with polystyrene in a mesh of reinforcing bar and spray the lot with concrete render..... 

Post edited at 18:10
Report
 RobAJones 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

and Ridge.

I was amazed that the average wage in Copeland was the third highest in England (only two areas in London are higher). On that basis it's surprising house prices are so low?

Report
 RobAJones 16 Nov 2020
In reply to SteveX:

and ClimberEd

> Look at local development plans, can give you a longer term idea. I know in our area, one side of the valley is set out in the strategic framework not to be built on, the view has a value to the wider community.

If you go down this route, also check that the targets in the plan are being met. If they aren't they me be forced to adopt a new plan.

Report
 jess13 16 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Never argue with a farmer, most know the value and price of their land.They run rings round most people.

Bloody rogues- in the forty odd years I've dealt with many farmers and heard 'eeh lad the jobs knackered' many times while the new Range Rover and john Deere tractor is sitting in the yard and they're sitting on £1m of property. Cheeky boogers always ask for money off the bill for 'luck' - I give them short thrift i.e No.

My local farmer bought fields from the adjacent Mill for a song in the seventies always moaned about 'off cummed uns from Manchester' trespassing on his land then sold it to the highest bidder for a housing estate.

I do have sympathy for tenant farmers especially as Brexit is not going to serve them well but they have no control over the land as they do not own it.

Report
In reply to RobAJones:

> and Ridge.

> I was amazed that the average wage in Copeland was the third highest in England (only two areas in London are higher). On that basis it's surprising house prices are so low?

The average salary is distorted by one major employer and the associated supply chain. The link below is out of date now, but the general situation remains:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/26/copeland-byelection-we-are-a-community-of-two-halves

It's a real concern how unbalanced the economy is in Copeland, and what happens when that employer begins to significantly shrink the current workforce.

Report
 RobAJones 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Ridge:

wages and T&Cs which have been offered over the past couple of years are much less attractive than they were.

I think the higher ups at Sellafield are claiming this is as their way of addressing

> It's a real concern how unbalanced the economy is in Copeland, and what happens when that employer begins to significantly shrink the current workforce.

???

Interesting to see what happens with house prices. When I moved up (1995) There was a school of thought that even thought it was more expensive,  Cockermouth would suffer less than areas closer to site.

Report
 Timmd 16 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The opposite side of the coin. There is a national housing shortage which has a detrimental effect on younger people gettign into the housing market. The cumulative effect on this on the natioanl shortage of houses is unreal...look it up. We desperately need to build more houses as it is creating a generational divide.

> It is a traversty that  people do not recognise this.

Yes it is. 

> And if I had the choice I would always buy a house on greefield. After all why would I have second best on some former industrial site probably stuffed with chemicals and good knows what.

There are regulations about what can be in the soil where residential housing is being built, so it's not something one would need to worry about AFAIK.

Report
 Arms Cliff 16 Nov 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> It's a real concern how unbalanced the economy is in Copeland, and what happens when that employer begins to significantly shrink the current workforce.

It talks about a new nuclear power station in that article, am I right in thinking that’s been canned now? 

It seems like a decent amount of the region could be focussing in the ever increasing attraction of the national park for economic stimulus, that whole area around Whitehaven is in easy access to some of the most beautiful bits of the park. Just need to convince people to drive another half hour on from Keswick!

Report
In reply to Arms Cliff:

> It talks about a new nuclear power station in that article, am I right in thinking that’s been canned now? 

Moorside has been abandoned for now, in it's current form at least. I imagine some new nuclear will be built in West Cumbria as it's one of the few places where there is little in the way of opposition.

> It seems like a decent amount of the region could be focussing in the ever increasing attraction of the national park for economic stimulus, that whole area around Whitehaven is in easy access to some of the most beautiful bits of the park. Just need to convince people to drive another half hour on from Keswick!

The western lakes are comparatively unspoilt compared to central and south eastern areas, I'm not convinced many locals want increased traffic on the poor and slow road network.

Support for industrial jobs (e.g. a new coal mine in Whitehaven) far exceeds jobs in tourism, largely because the pay is better. 

There are some very cheap houses with stunning views in places like Frizington. I dare say that the adjacent land is also relatively affordable, perhaps you can own some of your view after all. 

Report
In reply to steve taylor:

> My allotment in Wareham was outside my back garden gate! Planning permission has been requested more than once - it's inevitable that it will be granted at some point.

I've known of a church owning the land allotments were on and they sold it for housing. Another was on a long lease from a country estate, they refused to sell despite some crazy offers. It's hard to second guess sometimes. 

Report
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> Moorside has been abandoned for now, in it's current form at least. I imagine some new nuclear will be built in West Cumbria as it's one of the few places where there is little in the way of opposition.

I'm not sure. The industry is moving away from the current generation of complex nuclear plants, (that I think only the Chinese have so far sucessfully built?), to the idea of smaller, modular, reactors that don't require a huge workforce.

I reckon the next major nuclear build in West Cumbria will be a waste repository, not a reactor.

> The western lakes are comparatively unspoilt compared to central and south eastern areas, I'm not convinced many locals want increased traffic on the poor and slow road network.

It's also remote from the main road network. It's long way to Whitehaven from J36 of the M6 at Crooklands via the Barrow peninsular or J40 at Penrith via the single carriageway A66 and then A roads that would be B roads anywhere else.

It's a long way for tourists to come, and there's not a lot in the way of tourist infrastructure when they get there either.

> Support for industrial jobs (e.g. a new coal mine in Whitehaven) far exceeds jobs in tourism, largely because the pay is better. 

Absolutely.

> There are some very cheap houses with stunning views in places like Frizington. I dare say that the adjacent land is also relatively affordable, perhaps you can own some of your view after all. 

Friz is cheap for a reason!

Post edited at 21:39
Report
 Ciro 16 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The opposite side of the coin. There is a national housing shortage which has a detrimental effect on younger people gettign into the housing market. The cumulative effect on this on the natioanl shortage of houses is unreal...look it up. We desperately need to build more houses as it is creating a generational divide.

> It is a traversty that  people do not recognise this.

> And if I had the choice I would always buy a house on greefield. After all why would I have second best on some former industrial site probably stuffed with chemicals and good knows what.

The main reason it's difficult to get on the property ladder is that we sold off all the council housing stock which, knocking the bottom rungs off the rental ladder and turning them into buy-to-let investment properties.

Since then, successive governments have worked to keep the votes of homeowners by pursuing policies that will grow the value of their homes, instead of reversing the problem and bringing prices back into the reach of first time buyers.

The quickest and easiest way to sort this would be to build new council housing on brownfield sites - knocking the bottom out of the rental market, which would depress house prices across the board.

Nobody wants to remind the voters that the value of their investment may go down as well as up though.

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

Happened to read a good article in the Sunday Times magazine today about the knock on systemic problems in fire safety in many, many new builds.  The profit margins demanded by the big developers mean that many of the new build developments have serious problems with their fireproofing, stuff is in plans which never gets built and doesn't get picked up in inspections.  The deregulation of the building industry over the last twenty years has allowed this to happen and post-Grenfell it's starting to get picked up on, and now many properties are uninsurable and unsaleable.  Give me a 1950s semi over a new build flat any day!  This block burnt down in 11 minutes: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50000504

Report
 climbercool 17 Nov 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> The only way to halt building over the countryside is to stop the population increasing.


yours is the most popular comment on this thread so far, but the only one posible solution to this will be very unpopular here.  The only way to stop population increasing is to stop migration, the British people reproduce way below replacement level and have been for decades, it is migration and the higher birth rates of migrants that is increasing the population.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to climbercool:

> yours is the most popular comment on this thread so far, but the only one posible solution to this will be very unpopular here.  The only way to stop population increasing is to stop migration, the British people reproduce way below replacement level and have been for decades, it is migration and the higher birth rates of migrants that is increasing the population.

I disagree with both.

There is significant potential to increase population density in cities, which imho should be a priority over building into greenfield sites. 

Report
 climbercool 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

sure, there is potential, i bet we could squeeze 100 million odd into the U.K and the big cities could expand upwards, but why you think this would be a desirable outcome I have no idea, I see no benefit for future generations in having to share this small island with 30% more people.

Report
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to David Riley:

And whilst you are at it stop families splitting up, people deciding voluntarily to live on their own people living longer and people moving ot the South East

There are other reasons for housing demand.Its a bit more complicated than just population increasing. Lifestyle and societal changes have an impact as well.

Report
 Martin Hore 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Let's face it. The route cause of the problem is too many people.

> Covid may change things a little 

!

Report
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

Barely scratch the surface. From what I have read the annual shortage is 100,000 plus house a year and that has been going on for a number of years.1.2 million homes is a number that is bandied about.

Report
 David Riley 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Its a bit more complicated than just population increasing. 

Actually it's not.   If you imagine a graph of houses required against population.  It would be a rising straight line.  The position of the straight line just moves when the distributions you mention change with time.

As our lives continue to always get better, we use more housing.  If they ever did really get worse, we would use less.  It's a good indicator.

Report
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to David Riley:

As I said there are other factors- economic and changes in family structures- its more complicated than a graph.Just remember that in the 1960's it was common for whole generations of one family to live together.Now that same daily may have a need for 4 or 5 houses depending on what has happened.

But the crunch is simply we have not been building enough houses for 10 plus years. And sooner or later it catches up with itself.

Report
 David Riley 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

>  its more complicated than a graph.

Oh no it isn't.  

> But the crunch is simply we have not been building enough houses for 10 plus years. And sooner or later it catches up with itself.

So the straight line is moved again, if it includes the deficit.  It doesn't change.

Report
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to David Riley:

Its not a straight line, it is all over the place depending on location, family structures and so on. In some areas that line will be downwards as people move away etc.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to climbercool:

> sure, there is potential, i bet we could squeeze 100 million odd into the U.K and the big cities could expand upwards, but why you think this would be a desirable outcome I have no idea, I see no benefit for future generations in having to share this small island with 30% more people.

I have no desire for further population increase, but that was not the point of my comment.

You can create very liveable cities with high population density. They are the 'design' of the future, maximising space (I don't mean from a developers profit point of view) and maximising resource efficiency.  It doesn't have to make for unpleasant living. For example I think a large % of Londoners would like to live in Earls Court in Kensington & Chelsea and it is the most population dense ward (K&C as a whole is pipped by Islington and Hackney)

Report
 David Riley 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

I think you have misunderstood.

"If you imagine a graph of houses required against population.  It would be a rising straight line."

There is no "time" involved in this. You are talking about things changing with time. The slope of the line stays the same.  No matter, 4 people per house, or 1.5 per house, if the population doubles you need twice as much housing on any given day.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to David Riley:

I think there is a confusion between 'housing' and 'houses/households'. You could put more people in the same house. This would increase 'housing' but not the number of houses

Report
 RobAJones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to David Riley:

> I think you have misunderstood.

I have as well

> "If you imagine a graph of houses required against population.  It would be a rising straight line."

 if all houses are the same size??

Report
 RobAJones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to climbercool:

> I see no benefit for future generations in having to share this small island with 30% more people.

From their perspective, I can see the benefit if that extra 30% is made up of  people who are working and their children.  Less so,  if they are pensioners.

Report
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

You can....but as always people who make these comments choose /tend not not to live there. You live in a village in the coutryside and you want to keep it that way.You probably would not even entertain living in a flat.But it is ok for other people.Therein lies one of the fundamental issues.

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

> I disagree with both.

> There is significant potential to increase population density in cities, which imho should be a priority over building into greenfield sites. 

Says the man who moved from the city to the country and is now complaining about people building in the country.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Says the man who grew up in the country, moved to the city to start their career, and then moved back to the family house (to be accurate)

Report
 timjones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

IME the people who complain that the view from their nice edge of town home is being blighted by new housing are usually the people that blighted other peoples views when their own homes were built

Report
 timjones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to RobAJones:

> From their perspective, I can see the benefit if that extra 30% is made up of  people who are working and their children.  Less so,  if they are pensioners.

We all get old and given that socirty is so frightened of death today's workers and their kids are just tomorrow's pensioners.

Report
In reply to David Riley:

To inject some facts - some government stats from 2014 suggest 37% of new household growth is from migration, so although part of the issue much, less so than shifts in demographics and the nature of households that look to be the main driver of demand. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536702/Household_Projections_-_2014_-_2039.pdf   

Report
 David Riley 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ebdon:

I have not commented on migration or the amount of change in housing use.  Merely that if the population doubles then so does the housing requirement (average occupancy staying the same). Those other factors add on to that, making the housing requirement even more.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

> You can....but as always people who make these comments choose /tend not not to live there. You live in a village in the coutryside and you want to keep it that way.You probably would not even entertain living in a flat.But it is ok for other people.Therein lies one of the fundamental issues.

Not really. Just structure planning and leave it to the market. Some people will chose to live in the countryside, and some in the city. 

Report
 nniff 17 Nov 2020
In reply to David Riley:

Oops, sorry, I got my replies mixed up there. 

Report
 Offwidth 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

You only get to choose the countryside if you are unusual in some respect(s) (in wealth or luck or determination). The distorted housing market and the wider economy is what has caused that. No one wants to live in the cheapest place in a bad area of a city but it is all that some can afford given work constraints and is normally a better bet than renting if affordable. Every decade the disparity in affordability in the ability of the young working generation  to buy and where they can afford to buy seems to get worse. It's not a stable situation and building substandard affordable housing, destined to become future slums, is not the answer.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

you seem to be implying that I have suggested 'substandard affordable housing' & 'future slums' are a good thing.

All I have said is that greenfield sites should not allowed to be built on. I wish there was a realistic way of preventing it. That is the crux of my thread,To those who had said houses are needed I have said increased density in fully urban areas (not rural, semi rural, village etc) can be a solution.

Report
 RobAJones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Seems at least 300,000 properties are holiday homes (some reports put it over a million, and I expect quite a few have nice views) and over 200,000 other properties are empty.

Post edited at 17:02
Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to RobAJones:

Yes, I can imagine that is a distortion. 

'the view' was just a headline really (although also very important) for the destruction of countryside and the implications of the sprawl it creates.

Report
 webbo 17 Nov 2020
In reply to RobAJones:

A lot of those holiday homes will be static caravans/ chalets on the East Coast with a view of another caravan.

Post edited at 17:42
Report
 Iamgregp 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

This whole thread is inspired by your nimbyism, because you've got a house on the edge of a village and would very much like to keep it that way so why can't they just build more homes packed more tightly together in the big cities and stop building anywhere near where you might like the view?

Oh and whilst you're at it, you don't believe that there is a housing shortage (despite coverage in press, studies, etc etc) and that it's just something developers say in order to build more houses (god know who they'll sell them to if there's already enough houses?).

Finally you completely reject the, somewhat well documented, relationship between supply and demand and assert that more housing stock wouldn't result in lower house prices (or at least a slowing of the rate of growth in prices.) 

I don't know where to begin with any of this...

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Other than the rather aggressive use of the word nimbyism. (at least you didn't use bananaism) that's about right. 

I don't believe there is a housing shortage. There is a shortage of houses at prices people can purchase. That is not the same thing. House prices are almost (note, almost, not 100%, if you want to be pedantic) solely a function of the cost of credit (how much will my mortgage be)

Greenfield should stay greenfield. Full stop. Urban areas can stay densely urban, if you are already in a city it doesn't really matter (in fact it will provide you with more goods and services on your doorstep and within walking distance) if it is very dense. 

So, please, get over yourself.

Report
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Nicely put. 

Report
 neilh 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Just do some more research and look at Housing Committee reports in Parliament. 

Report
 RobAJones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to webbo:

Sorry, I should have used the term second home. It is probably much higher than 300,000 as that doesn't include any that are rented out for a few weeks. I think it is bricks and mortar, you only pay council tax if a static is your sole main residence.

Apparently there are over 650,000 homes that are empty, but only 225000 for more than six months.

On a different note over a million homes in Spain are owned by non-residents.So a significant part of their housing requirement has nothing to to with the population of Spain. 

Report
 Iamgregp 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

What's aggressive about using the word nimbyism?   I'm not an aggressive person.  I thought it apt as it's literally what your issue is...

From the Collins dictionary: "the practice of objecting to something that will affect one or take place in one's locality".  The fact you've extended your objection to "all greenfield sites" doesn't subtract from the fact that your motivation comes from not wanting houses built on the edge of your village.

There is a shortage of houses at prices people can purchase.

Agreed, and what the best way to make houses more affordable and to address the disconnect between house prices rise and earning rise?  Yep, build more houses.  It's that supply and demand relationship at work again.

The need to build on greenfield sites isn't new - Milton Keynes, Welwyn Garden City, Washington etc.  We've always needed to turn greenfield sites into urban sites and that's never going to change.

I live in East London, and recently saw a map of the area from 100 odd years ago.  Guess what there was where my house stands now?

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

Nothing will persuade me that house prices are due to anything other than cheap credit. There is almost a direct inverse correlation since the early 90s between interest rates going down and house prices going up. If people can't afford to pay then prices won't go up. People can only afford to pay because of cheap credit.  

And nothing will persuade me that there is a shortage of homes beyond 'affordable' homes. There are plenty of houses on the market.

Report
 ClimberEd 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> What's aggressive about using the word nimbyism?   I'm not an aggressive person.  I thought it apt as it's literally what your issue is...

> From the Collins dictionary: "the practice of objecting to something that will affect one or take place in one's locality".  The fact you've extended your objection to "all greenfield sites" doesn't subtract from the fact that your motivation comes from not wanting houses built on the edge of your village.

>

The fact that I don't want houses built on any greenfield sites directly contradicts nimbyism. Nimbysim is used when someone is happy for something to happen elsewhere that they don't want near them. 

And I wouldn't have built milton keynes, welwyn garden city etc .

Report
In reply to ebdon:

> To inject some facts - some government stats from 2014 suggest 37% of new household growth is from migration, so although part of the issue much, less so than shifts in demographics and the nature of households that look to be the main driver of demand. 

It says that population growth accounts for around 94% of household growth so the nature of households can only be marginal.

Population growth is the main driver and net migration accounts for 45% of population growth. The remaining 55% of population growth must be driven by something else. 

Report
 Iamgregp 17 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Pretty sure a Nimby would be person being happy for homes to be built in a city, but not on the land beside their house at the edge of the village.  

Of course if a person was fundamentally against all house building in any location, now that wouldn't be nimbyism.

Don't expect you to agree with that point of view, but then I've never heard a nimby own up to being one.

Report
 RobAJones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> It says that population growth accounts for around 94% of household growth so the nature of households can only be marginal.

It estimates the average household size will fall from 2.35 to 2.21

> Population growth is the main driver and net migration accounts for 45% of population growth.

but as ebdon said this accounts for 37% of household growth, presumably because their average household size is expected to be 2.7  

The remaining 55% of population growth must be driven by something else. 

People living longer. The number of households where the head is under 45 is expected to stay the same.   Over half the increase is in house holds where the head is over 75.

Perhaps it is retirement villages/cities we should be building?

Report
 HansStuttgart 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Pretty sure a Nimby would be person being happy for homes to be built in a city, but not on the land beside their house at the edge of the village.  

and especially not when it is 10-storey buildings with lots of cheap-to-rent apartments.

Report
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Don't expect you to agree with that point of view, but then I've never heard a nimby own up to being one.

I'm NIMBY and I'm proud!

Report
 Iamgregp 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Ha!  Fair play!

Report
 RobAJones 17 Nov 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Who isn't?

Our local plan states that we are in an infill and rounding off village.We have twice had plans to build on the field behind rejected, on the grounds that it would extend the village. It's a twenty year plan with seven years left. The targets for our type of village have already been met and we (our village) have contributed to our fair share of that total through developments that were infill. 

Obviously in seven years the new plan might be different. I have sympathy for people who live where the plan has been changed (early) due to the targets not being met.  

Report
 neilh 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Facts speak for themselves about the housing shortage. 

if you cannot recognise the Nimbiyism in your postings that is your issue. 

At least other posters own up to it. 

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Nov 2020
In reply to neilh:

Bananism please. Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. Not nimbyism. 

And I agree, the facts speak for themselves. There is no shortage. 

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

> And I agree, the facts speak for themselves. There is no shortage. 

Let's have a look at the facts Ed.

There are 320,000 people in the UK who are homeless, for most that means hostels or temporary accommodation, but they are homeless.

There are four million people in substandard accommodation, be the unfit for human habitation or severely overcrowded.

What this ultimately means is that there is a shortage of around 1,200,000 homes in the UK.

The government has a target of 300,000 new homes (net) annually in the last decade the average achieved has been around 200,000. A low of 125,000 in 2012/2013 and a high of 247,000 in 2018/2019.

It is estimated that planning permissions for 87,000 new homes will elapse during 2020/2021, without being built, so arguably planners are doing their bit to maintain supply.

I'm involved in town centre regeneration and have been very active in developing a residential market on brownfield, town centre sites, we have a plan to build 2,000 new homes in our principal town centre and have already secured the first 700 or so. This is changing the town centre residential population from hundreds to thousands, but even so, to meet the government targets, we need to also build on greenfield sites, we also have to recognise that urban living isn't for everyone.

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Nov 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

The 'facts' are that if you go anywhere in the country there are houses for sale for people to buy and live in.

So there isn't a shortage of physical housing. There may be a shortage of cheap housing. It really is as simple as that.

Report
In reply to ClimberEd: There are reckoned to be 600,000 empty homes in the U.K., I believe the 1,200,000 figure takes that in to account, however that clearly shows that regardless of affordability there is a significant housing shortage.

Report
 Offwidth 18 Nov 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Unless of course you believe poor people don't deserve a house or callously turn a blind eye to that gap or are so stupid you talk about the subject and don't realise that. ;-)

The number of planning permissions not utilised according to many experts indicates massive developer price control by limiting supply.

I grew up in a village and knew how many of my generation and after couldn't afford to live there (as they wanted) unless they stayed in overcrowded conditions in their parents house (often purchased council accommodation following Maggies 'reforms'). The few council houses that became vacant had long waiting lists and strict conditions based rightly on greatest need.

Report
 Iamgregp 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Hang on, your evidence that there isn't a shortage of housing is that "there are houses for sale for people to buy and live in?"  And that actually, it's just a shortage of "cheap housing"?

So, by your logic, if there was enough "cheap housing" in the UK there would be no houses for sale?  Nobody would buy or sell ever?  I guess estate agents would be made redundant by their thousands?

I'm not sure that's how the housing market works.

You seem to not be able to grasp the most basic of economic concepts (relationship between supply and demand was literally lesson 1 of my A-Level economics) and the more you've tried to argue your point the more this has become clear.

Your pub-level economics and anecdotal evidence seem to carry more weight in your mind than the countless articles, studies and government initiatives all of which directly contradict your views.  You're basically Donald Trump locked in the Oval office telling anyone in earshot about how you won the election.

Let's go back to the facts.  You live on the edge of a village.  You don't want more houses built which spoil your view, but there's nowt you can do about it as the law doesn't protect your view.  You don't think it should be allowed, but it is. 

Someone close the thread.

Post edited at 15:02
Report
 ClimberEd 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

As you seem to be resorting to an ad hominum attack I should point out that I have an A in a level economics and it was also part of my masters. I would suggest that it is your economics that is too simple, reducing it to its most simplistic 'supply and demand  = price'

Your knickers are in fact so far in a twist that you haven't understood what I have written but have created your own imaginary construct...... 

 - Nowhere did I say anything about enough cheap housing and no houses being for sale (or even estate agents). 

- and neither do I live on the edge of a village

;-) 

Report
 Harry Jarvis 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> - and neither do I live on the edge of a village

But you do want to buy a house on the edge of a village and you want to prevent new housing from spoiling your view. Never mind what anyone else might want or need, it's your view that's important. 

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

I thought you said it was simple, houses are for sale, therefore there isn't a housing shortage. Are you now saying that it isn't that simple?

Report
 Iamgregp 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> - and neither do I live on the edge of a village

Ah yes, right you are.  You said you're currently trying to buy a house on the edge of a village.  Huge, huge difference!

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis & Iamgregp

I live in a village. But where I live is irrelevant. Somehow you seem to think attacking my place of abode nullifies the validity of my argument. That's not very robust. 

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Nov 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

And you also seem to want to twist my words. 

House prices are not high because there are a shortage of homes. That, as the headline, is simple. It is not as simple as 'numbers of people and number of houses supply and demand balance = the price'

Report
 Harry Jarvis 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

How right you are. Your A level Economics is the clincher, of course.

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Nov 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Indeed. Thank you for that acknowledgement. 

Report
In reply to ClimberEd:

> And you also seem to want to twist my words. 

The contortions you are making to maintain your delusions of credibility are enough twists for all of us.

Post edited at 16:56
Report
 Harry Jarvis 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

There are a myriad other reasons why you're talking nonsense, but at least you have your A Level. You must be proud. 

Report
 ClimberEd 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

What convenient timing

https://twitter.com/NobleFrancis/status/1329007303903862785

(graph of London house prices and mortgage rates).

Report
 Iamgregp 18 Nov 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Great point!

What we need to do is raise interest rates and make starter homes ummm... even more unaffordable?

Not to mention that raising interest rates shrinks the economy, slipping us back into recession, meaning that those looking to get onto the property ladder are going to find it more difficult to find the permanent well paid jobs that they need in order to secure the (now even larger) mortgage they need.

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.