National Trust up in arms at new planning laws

[VenetiaLanyon]

Under the guise of promoting economic growth, the government is making it easier for developers to obtain planning permission; sounds like a lot of property development companies will be rubbing their hands with glee over new planning laws being brought in by the government....National Trust is protesting.

www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-countryside_environment/w-planning-landing.htm

What is the point of retaining so much agricultural land? There is not enough left to provide much in the way of food for the population, so why preserve what there is in aspic? It is mostly sod all use for tourism or for recreation. National parks are rightly protected so that there is plenty of space for us to go hiking/camping/hostelling etc. The tourism industry would be much healthier if accomodation costs were lower and more people could afford to come here, and if more of us could afford to spend our holidays in the UK.

No need for any real reduction in the quality of our lives. The problem with consulting with local people is that too many are instinctively concerned about maintaining the price they could get for their own house. That means that they have an incentive to object to new homes being built.

Just thinking when you wrote "reduction in the quality of our lives"

you were probably thinking of yourself and people like you

Just like Kirstie Allsop who has insisted that "we" all benefited from the house price boom.

Because those who don't own property don't count.

"Cogito, the logical result of what you're saying is the unrestrained growth of towns and cities, until there is no difference between city suburbs and rural villages, and no agricultural land"

Emotional, exaggerated horseshit. We built the new towns in the forties and fifties and still managed to have plenty of greenery and agricultural land left. We could do the same again quite easily. And I am a hiker. I love the countryside and that's why I don't want to see it continue to slowly die.

So, you would like the entire country to be one large housing estate? Do you honestly believe that is best? What do you propose we do when everything had been built on? What do you think it will do to the environment? Green space plays an important part in pollution control etc.

We have a finite amount of space. Best people get used to that idea before it is too late

Of course, the the alternative to children being raised in ever more cramped circumstances is to have fewer children.

Cogito, eventually you have to stop building new towns etc or you will have built on everything. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Like the 'save our forests' debate, once again sentimentality gets in the way of reasoned argument. According to the naysayers there is no middle ground between the 'status quo' and 'one large housing estate' or 'building on everything'. There may be a finite amount of space but building a million homes - energy efficient, naturally - will not use that space up, not even close.

There is no argument for state-sponsored family restriction.

And what about when those million homes are full?

I don't advocate state sponsored population control but people really have to realise that we can't go on like this.

"According to the naysayers there is no middle ground between the 'status quo' and 'one large housing estate' or 'building on everything'"

Well, there isn't is there, because at some point you have to draw the line. Either you stop or you end up building on everything.

There are more options to consider before building on green land. Brownfield sites being the most obvious.

" Either you stop or you end up building on everything"

Let's start with 'building' and then see how we go. Right now rural communities are dying. Young people can't afford to live in the places they grew up because they've become too expensive. Locals in the expensive properties - often from outside the community - don't want any development of either homes or businesses in case it brings down house prices. Employers have to bring in people from out of the area or overseas to fill jobs because there aren't enough working-age people locally. Shops, post-offices and pubs in rural communities and closing weekly because there isn't enough trade to keep them going.

I think we've already got 'line drawing' and it's getting us nowhere.

Wholly Ghost - I don't own any property and never have.

Cogito - it's very hard to disentangle your arguments! You want more houses in rural communities in order to provide local young people with somewhere to live so that they can stay in the area, local businesses with customers, etc. But if you build lots more houses, why will the local people want to stay in the area? You will have destroyed whatever reason there was for people wanting to live and work in a village if it becomes a town.

The solution is not to build lots of new houses (a few, maybe!). However, you could start dealing with the problem of second homes and wealthy people buying up all the available housing then selling it on at inflated prices.

My point is that building on green belt land should be an absolute last resort. There are so many other ways of finding people somewhere to live that should be explored first, before anyone even thinks of carving up the countryside.

The Localism bill has some interesting stuff on this. Effectively they are suggesting that neighbourhoods should create their own planning guidance to try and find places which would be appropriate for building. If you think more houses should be built, then you really should look into this when the bill becomes law (next year likely) so that the neighbourhood forums aren't completely dominated by boomers trying to keep their house prices up.

Solo - landbanking is buying up land and getting planning permission for it - building it out when economic conditions will generate the biggest profit. Planning permissions generally only last for 3 years, but is straightforward to renew and just keep it turning over until a developer can really make a killing on an overpriced rabbit hutch.

I rather think that shops in rural communities are closing because big supermarkets are cheaper and better stocked. Similarly for post offices although the reason there is that RM are shutting sub post offices and branches to cut costs and you can buy stamps anywhere. Hell, I can even print off my own postage labels without even leaving the house (I actually make a point of using my local sub post office though). I don't think either of those things are anything to do with housing issues do you? I don't think it has anything to do with pubs closing either TBH.

Building over green land isn't going to solve either of those issues.

Thanks, Azazello. Maybe the government should bring in a law to stop landbanking?

wholly The UK is 60 percent self sufficient through it's agricultural land. We do import stuff but only because of climate and cost. We could be very nearly self sufficient. That's why our land is so important. We do feed ourselves and we could feed more of us if we needed to.

Villages know what housing needs they have, they very rarely need more 4 bed detached houses. They mostly need 2/3 bed starter homes and old folks bungalows. Neither of those are very popular with the big developers or the planners right now.

We do need housing - affordable homes on brown field sites. There is no need to dig up the countryside! It's just because the construction companies make more money from building six-bedroom mansions than they would from more modest dwellings.

We really should not let them buy up the countryside until they have filled up the brown field sites thus regenerating local economies in the towns and cities.