Views on this house

[PhilandKirst]

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/164944097

DD is keen on this house. She’s asked me for my views- I wondered if anyone knew the area or had any thoughts. House doesn’t have much character at present but I think it could be given a lot more.

I like the house itself. But I don't like how squeezed in it is. I'm on a road of all 3-5 bed houses and each have 1 space on drive but 50% of houses have 2 cars and 4 have a van aswell. There's a lot parked on the road, which isn't too bad as nice width of road and pavements. There's also a lot more delivery vans now than when I moved here 14 years ago.

Garden is small if she has dc

Soulless. Sorry.

Weird. Not helped by the sellers got in over their heads and couldn’t afford furnishings.
Lesson there.

They need to have some that goes to the right places at the right times for that to work.

The government are going to make it worse, they are planning on enforcing house builders to provide less parking, smaller gardens and more bike storage on new build estates, all for net zero.

This is as good as it gets, see my previous post.

Ugh you’re kidding. So more pavements lined with cars parked on them. As if people use bikes ffs to do the weekly shop or go anywhere with kids

Wish I was, as usual it’s the average Joe who is going to have to live like this in the future.

The current UK Labour government's planning proposals aim to
increase housing density which includes policies that may result in smaller gardens and fewer parking spaces in new developments. These policies are designed to make more efficient use of land, meet housing targets, and encourage the use of public transport, walking, and cycling.
Parking Restrictions
Mandatory Limits: Labour's proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would require local councils to set maximum limits on the number of parking spaces in new housing developments, rather than this being optional or needing "clear and compelling justification" as under previous rules.
Discouraging Car Use: The policy's intention is to discourage car reliance, particularly in areas with good public transport links.
Criticism: Critics, including the Conservative Party and motoring organisations, argue this approach will lead to increased on-street congestion, blocked pavements, dangerous parking, and an overall "parking misery" for drivers.
Garden Sizes and Density
Urban Densification: The proposed framework supports "effective and efficient use of land" and encourages the redevelopment of low-density plots, infill development within residential boundaries, and potentially higher buildings at street corners.
"Garden Grabbing" Concerns: The reforms have been accused by some critics of facilitating "garden grabbing," allowing developers to purchase homes with large gardens and replace them with multiple new builds that may have smaller or no gardens.
Local Standards: While national standards exist for internal space, the amount of private outdoor amenity space (gardens, balconies) is often determined by local council policies, which can vary. Labour's changes encourage optimising density, meaning local authorities may be more permissive of designs that reduce private garden sizes in favour of more homes or shared green spaces.
The overall thrust of the policy is to address the housing crisis by building more homes more quickly, even if this means increasing urban density and reducing amenities such as large gardens and dedicated parking spaces.

Ridiculous. Lack of parking spaces has zero effect on someone using public transport. Do these people really believe this

It is SUCH a ridiculous policy.

But, even more worrying, according to @Theresabatinmykitchen 's last post, there is something I agree with the Conservative Party on

These are for properties near public transport

A lot of developers are going for ( and have in the past ) townhouses with parking on the ground floor and habitable spaces above.
This reduces the overall plot size and can help increase density but still provide onsite parking

What does that mean though?
We have developers lying on planning applications about public transport here all the time.

They can lie all they like
Planners check to see if there is good public transport
access to certain amenities also increases the chances of no or low parking spaces for developments

I wonder what level of detail they check though. A developer near me has so many lies in their latest application but make out it’s all taken from websites complete with references. They also have lied about the distances.

But also, public transport doesn’t equate to people using it. So for example where I am is close to a large supermarket, it’s walking distance. But no one would walk there and carry back a weekly shop.
I can get a bus to town but I always drive because the bus cos is extortionate and it’s a right hassle in bad weather. I don’t know anyone who uses the bus except teenagers and people who can’t drive.

I don’t know why they seem to think people won’t use cars and wouldn’t just leave cars all over the pavements. They just need to check out estates built in the last 20 years to see that. We even had a case where an ambulance couldn’t get down a road in my area due to so many cars once. It’s a mess.

They will check walking distances and whether there are actual pavements
Whilst I agree most people drive to shop that won’t discount the ability to walk.
If a local area needs housing and has public transport some councils put in residents parking only etc to stop those in new developments parking

It says this car parking policy is for “particularly” in areas with good transport links not exclusively, no doubt a weekly bus will be considered a good transport link and as most of these developments are part of urban sprawl you can bet your bottom dollar your local market town will be considered to have “good transport links” when locals know the truth that it is anything but. This policy is absolute manna from heaven for house building companies, they can now build even higher density housing than they do now all under the guise of net zero and not only increase their profits to new incredible heights, they can also pat themselves on the back they are saving the planet by shoving Mr and Mrs average into a tiny house cheek by jowl to your neighbours with cars piled up on pavements because there is no parking, and hey the council can increase their coffers at the same time by ticketing said parking, win win.

You seem to put a lot of faith in what “they” will do, you only have to look at the promise of new schools, GP surgeries and amenities which are always part of the plans passed by the Council and we know they never come to fruition, or if they do it’s 15 years down the line once the huge edge of town estate is complete.

A weekly bus wouldnt count. The council would have to have that upgraded.
Also if there’s only a bus then local shops providing most essential shopping would need to be accessible.

Agree on the parking fines issue though but
I’m in favour of denser housing to preserve land.
I think building more townhouses with parking on the ground floor would solve the problem for those not near public transport. A ground floor one bed flat adjacent with a family home above would be even more economical with land and provide for the disabled too

I would hate that downstairs - assuming there are many people in the family to need all those bedrooms, having one family space open to the stairs and the doors like that wouldn’t be cosy and would be so noisy all the time. Bedrooms look great but something would need to change on the ground floor.

I’m not condoning the policy of parking, just stating the job of planners. They spend many months and even years juggling the needs of everyone to get housing
Im an Architect, not a planner.

People need housing they can afford and if providing three on site parking spaces per property raises the price and lowers the number of homes that can be built then its homes first…always

A weekly bus wouldnt count. The council would have to have that upgraded.
Also if there’s only a bus then local shops providing most essential shopping would need to be accessible.

You have a lot of faith in what the council would “have” to do, but the lived experience of new housing estates from the past 20 years is promises of schools, surgeries which just don’t happen.

Seems perfectly nice and could be lovely with an injection of style.

I’d be interested in the fire strategy as the ground floor stairs discharge into the sitting room. This would normally require some form of mitigation via fire engineering.

That’s down to local councils to deal with
Large developers have to give them money under s106 to upgrade services ie schools, gps etc. Ultimately most are using it just to pay the welfare bill at the moment and not on what they should be.