When is derelict really derelict?

[scottishjohn]

37 minutes ago, RichC said:

I think we need a planning system that actually turns this notion on its head and looks out for the individual.

so i buy house next to green belt and half the price isdue to its view of land that cannot be developed and you as some sort of hippy tinker want to build next to me 

I,m an individual  --so what about my rights and devaluing of my house .

the system has its flaws but you basic idea of being able to build anything where ever you want is just not viable or fair to the rest of the community 

but I do agree the PP put tooo many constraints on the style of a building an indivual wants to build on his own land  and seem ot refuse designs ,just because they are not in keeping with others aorund same area.

here they have a prevalence for limitng new builds to one and a half stories - even if there is no one that can over look the house .individuality should be encouraged .

only way you get 2 storys is fi you are replacing one that was that way before 

2 storeys should be encouraged even if only on the grounds of evironmental damage -and energy usage bungalows are not an efficent usage of roof and foundations  same as earth shelterd should be -but I have seen 2 of these refused here 

smae goes for insisting on wooden sash  and case windows in old"b" listed buldings-wood will never last like modern materials especially when you can get wood grained pvc  at a fraction of the price and if the old wooden ones were painted --why should you use wood ,cos you can,t tell the difference when its painted

 

 

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

18 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

...you as some sort of hippy tinker want to build next to me   I'm an individual  --so what about my rights and devaluing of my house ....

 

A very well respected local land owner  of my ken (Rollo's dad for those who are interested) recently took me aside and said ...

"The biggest mistake almost everyone makes is to assume that they have rights over the land they can see, as well as the land they own" 

 

Hippy Tinker, nun, local reformed wide-boy, retired senior diplomat - irrelevant in planning terms. Its the use to which a building is put that really matters.

[ProDave]

On 08/06/2020 at 11:48, scottishjohn said:

got a link? --to see what they allowed , out of interest

certainly no chance down here of getting PP on that 

Thinking about this again.  Should that sort of "brown field" site not be exactly where we are encouraging houses to be built?  It is of no agricultural value like that so you might as well re develop it in a useful way.

 

Or would you prefer it to be left derelict and of not use and force people to build their house somewhere else?

[scottishjohn]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

Thinking about this again.  Should that sort of "brown field" site not be exactly where we are encouraging houses to be built?  It is of no agricultural value like that so you might as well re develop it in a useful way.

 

Or would you prefer it to be left derelict and of not use and force people to build their house somewhere else?

I definatley think we ought to use brownfiield sites first --but that croft would not fall into the catagory  for brownfield ,

but yes i would let anyone rebuild any ruin to modern spec

but i,m not planning dept

 that would definatly be in the abandoned  section  i think 

and has "returned to nature "

 

[scottishjohn]

6 hours ago, AnonymousBosch said:

 

A very well respected local land owner  of my ken (Rollo's dad for those who are interested) recently took me aside and said ...

"The biggest mistake almost everyone makes is to assume that they have rights over the land they can see, as well as the land they own" 

 

Hippy Tinker, nun, local reformed wide-boy, retired senior diplomat - irrelevant in planning terms. Its the use to which a building is put that really matters.

I understand that only too well 

which is why we have planning telling you what you can and cannnot build .

@RichC was wanting no planning control -so anyone can build anything anywhere --which is where the tinker  comparsion came from ,cos thats what you would get if  you did away with planning and building control

Edited June 9, 2020 by scottishjohn

[joe90]

Yes to building on brownfield sites and yes to rebuilding derelict, that Croft is not a good use of land being left like that so why not allow it to be rebuilt. I say again, why planners are so against building when there is a housing shortage beggars belief (IMO).

[scottishjohn]

9 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Yes to building on brownfield sites and yes to rebuilding derelict, that Croft is not a good use of land being left like that so why not allow it to be rebuilt. I say again, why planners are so against building when there is a housing shortage beggars belief (IMO).

especially where that is 

not as though barratt homes isvgoing to want to build an estate

[RichC]

I went dark for a while. Apologies. Had some other distractions that kept my attention elsewhere.

 

@scottishjohn Even the hippy tinker in me does not want planning with abandon as you seem to think I do.

 

However, imagine this scenario. A large supermarket chain eyes up a nice field on the edge of your local development. It's a nice spot. Now, they have the money to go in, buy the land and start building without PP. The 'groundwork' so to speak has been ongoing for years in the community in the form of networking with the right people. It doesn't matter how the supermarket will affect the local community or local businesses. It's a fait-a-complis. It's a case of money gets the PP regardless of the relative merits of the supermarket. It goes on up and down the land every day.

But, if a regular bloke, or hippy tinker had come along and eyed up a plot to build their house, they may or may not get planning permission. Either way they will jolly well have to go through all the official channels and we all know that it may be a hellish journey for anyone to take.

 

As with most things in life, money and influence get the job done no matter what, and this is exactly what I'm getting at. Our planning system, rather than protecting the countryside and regulating building seems to only protect and regulate those without the funds to circumvent it. I cite the 'Paragraph 79' loophole as a case in point.

 

...And that was my point. I don't have all the answers but I would like to see it become easier for ordinary people to build a home without putting themselves under a lifetime of debt.

[joe90]

5 hours ago, RichC said:

I don't have all the answers but I would like to see it become easier for ordinary people to build a home without putting themselves under a lifetime of debt.

I totally agree, my planning fight ended with me taking it to the Secretary of State for an appeal and won hands down, the planners even had a ticking off fir not abiding with their own policies, wasted two years of my life and ££££.? The planner even told me if I took it to appeal I would probably win!!,!,! Beggars belief.

[scottishjohn]

7 hours ago, RichC said:

but I would like to see it become easier for ordinary people to build a home without putting themselves under a lifetime of debt.

ok so what you you consider the right price for a 3 bedroom home  should be , if building from scratch to all modern building codes

£ 50k -100k-200K -then price of land 

most people will have to spend a good portion of thier life to pay that off  

whats your solution 

 

[scottishjohn]

7 hours ago, RichC said:

The 'groundwork' so to speak has been ongoing for years in the community in the form of networking with the right people.

and lots of expense to them  to find sonmething the council will accept 

you make it sound like they haven,t invested large amounts of money over long periods to get the result they want 

the will have  and probably done something for the community .like a new play park or something to make it happen 

 when you find a new way to change how the world works  we would love to know 

 

 

 

[RichC]

13 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

you make it sound like they haven,t invested large amounts of money over long periods to get the result they want 

 

No - my point is exactly that they have the money to do what ordinary locals can't do.

 

I used a supermarket as an example. I'm not suggesting that we don't need services like this, what I am saying is that there needs to be a level playing field in regards to planning rules. At the moment we have rules that can be bought.

[RichC]

13 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

 

when you find a new way to change how the world works  we would love to know 

 

 

How about these:

1. Subsidies on land prices for locals buying in the area that they have lived and worked. Subsidies for infill and brownfield self-builders.

2. Earmarking pockets of land around settlements for local sale, where possible.

3. Streamlining the sale of land with the planning process so that it is easier to come to an agreement for sale should planning be approved.

4. Make change of use of buildings easier, so that neglected farm building can become residential opportunities.

5. A discussion on ways to avoid an old property losing it's C3 residential status simply through neglect.

 

New ways are invariably not as efficient as the established procedures. Throwing out the old order is not what I'm suggesting. Our planning laws exist for a reason. However, there are sharp jagged edges on our planning system and they need to be ground down so that first time self builders can actually get on and build without having to become planning experts in the process, or go through months of emotional turmoil.

[scottishjohn]

48 minutes ago, RichC said:

1. Subsidies on land prices for locals buying in the area that they have lived and worked.

2. Earmarking pockets of land around settlements for local sale, where possible

that would be a no from me 

there is plenty of land in the uk --the reason land prices are expensive is everyone wants to be in the same place -thats not a reason to support land prices for some 

 you can surcharge holiday homes --not sure how you do that -which would help in some areas 

just spread the population out 

we have seen how so many people can work from home -

 ear marking --could only work if there was a clause which says all owners in future must work and live with in the area --not enforcable 

there is a very radical idea --build council houses ???-which can never be sold to tennants --

Subsidies for in fill and brownfield self-builders.--why just self builders ?----do they have to be BAME and or LGBT as well .LOL

thats how mad  equality is getting now 

Edited June 12, 2020 by scottishjohn

[RichC]

@scottishjohn OK. Fine. It's all good. I'm going to bow out of the discussion now.

 

I just wanted to have a light discussion with a few folks on what constituted derelict, not an argument about planning law. 

[SteamyTea]

24 minutes ago, RichC said:

How about these:

1. Subsidies on land prices for locals buying in the area that they have lived and worked. Subsidies for infill and brownfield self-builders.

2. Earmarking pockets of land around settlements for local sale, where possible.

3. Streamlining the sale of land with the planning process so that it is easier to come to an agreement for sale should planning be approved.

4. Make change of use of buildings easier, so that neglected farm building can become residential opportunities.

5. A discussion on ways to avoid an old property losing it's C3 residential status simply through neglect.

Down here in Cornwall, some small town have a policy that only 'locals' can have houses built.  The definition of 'locals' is so wide that most people can claim it.

It has also stopped development dead in some towns.

In the town I work in, my council has subsidies housing though a shared purchase scheme.  So the locals borrow money on 25% of the property and pay the council a rent on the other 75%.  Then they get stung for service charges.

And, and this is what narks me, I am, though my council tax, subsidising the building of other peoples homes (I am also topping up council workers pension funds, but the council is not topping up mine).

I don't understand 'localism'.  I looked at my birth certificate and never noticed that it said I have the right to buy an affordable house where my mother decided to give birth to me.  And if that was the case, should it mean that is the only place I can live.

 

I was involved with a planning consultation group a while back, they were objecting to some houses being built.  I suggested that the easiest way to stop the development was to buy the land.  For some, unknown reason, I became very unpopular.  Seems to me that people think that everyone else should pay the price to preserve what they have.

If you like a view, buy it, if you can't afford it, tough.

 

Regarding remote locations, that some people desire, there are other ways to make them exclusive, increased transport costs, utility surcharges, council tax surcharges (though I was a fan of the poll tax) etc.

There are also ways to make urban living more acceptable.  Mainly better design of housing, services and open spaces.  There is a bit of a myth that larger houses cost more money, but when 2/3^rd of the value is in the plot, and there is a limited amount of money to spend on housing, then the plot prices drop, this evens everything out.

 

As for building on agricultural land, not many farmers sell off there most productive land, they sell off the rubbish. Down here most of the farm land is grade 3b and below.  Or usually refereed to as wasteland.  The good land is generally used to horticulture, as that is currently profitable.  The land below it is generally used for early crops because we are a month ahead of the rest of the country.  But that is a bit silly in a global economy, we are not a month ahead of the Spanish, or the USA (no one really tastes the difference between English or Dutch new potatoes, or Welsh and New Zealand lamb, people have just bought into a marketing campaign and pay extra for their stupidity).

 

So I am all for relaxing planning laws, but tightening up environmental ones.  We could then end up with better housing, and probably at the same prices we currently pay.

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, RichC said:

I just wanted to have a light discussion with a few folks on what constituted derelict, not an argument about planning law

Trouble is what is derelict to some, is a wasted opportunity to others.

[SteamyTea]

12 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

there is a very radical idea --build council houses ???-which can never be sold to tennants

Why should I pay my local council to build a house for someone else.

Did you give a new car to anyone that could not afford one?

[scottishjohn]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

Trouble is what is derelict to some, is a wasted opportunity to others.

isee no problem in allowing old crofts to be rebuilt if to modern stds --and occupied all year round ---but itinfilling between towns thats the problem 

Iused to live inmanchester until 1976 

Icould drive from stcok[port to blackpool,and this isbefore the motorway network as it is now  without usinghheadlamps --thats over 60 miles --thtas too much 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, scottishjohn said:

Icould drive from stcok[port to blackpool,and this isbefore the motorway network as it is now  without usinghheadlamps --thats over 60 miles --thtas too much 

That is about environmental policy, something I think needs to be tightened up a lot, not housing policy.

[scottishjohn]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

Why should I pay my local council to build a house for someone else.

Did you give a new car to anyone that could not afford one?

no problem if the rent is a realistic one ,without being over the top 

rent should make them self funding ,if not rents are wrong level 

the idea is fine if done correctly and keeping politics out of it ,which i beleive is reason rents generally for councilhousing has always been too low

and cost to build too high 

[scottishjohn]

I wonder if you offeed a contract to build 1000 sips or some other type of quick build -cheap type of  HUF HAUS kit houses  --how much they would be 

 what they used to call prefabs after the war 

there is a company make them in germany using woodcrete panels already poured infafactory ,then just craned onto site+bolted otgether 

It cannot be outside the wit of man to make economical GOOD prefabhouses in a factory these days 

plenty of money  in  the world to fund it ,providing they get a warrantied return --ideal for pension compnay -5% government backed return over 20years 

 soical housing problem +enviromental  sorted in one go  ?

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

no problem if the rent is a realistic one ,without being over the top 

When paying a mortgage, you are, in effect, paying rent.  Should mortgages be subsidised?

(I have often thought that there should be a variable surcharge on mortgages to help stabilise prices, nothing to stop that surcharge going negative).

 

Interesting about building council housing, if you lump council and housing association housing together (because we have, rightly or wrongly privatised social housing out), then between 20 to 25% of new build housing falls into that category (the percentages varies in the cycle).

Here is the link, not that you will read it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875361/House_Building_Release_December_2019.pdf

[scottishjohn]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Here is the link, not that you will read it.

your right 

[Lorenz]

Just caught a few comments on here as it came up when looking for One Planet Development. 

Agriculture in the UK makes money? I do know when I lived in Latvia farmers incomes were completely dependant on handouts from the EU and simply put, no way they were economic or profitable. So defining the right to build on a given piece of land being agriculturally profitable seems bizarre. Many farmers in Wales currently seem to be trying to cash in, selling poor land for high prices to people trying to do the OPD thing, seems a great many buyers are getting permission too. I understand there is a financed push from government to try to get farmers to retire, I guess in the hope of cutting down on paying lots of benefits to keep farms going. 

So it maybe that we see more OPD across the country, but farms without being given benefits in this country would be about 10% or less, of current units, from what I was taught when I was doing Ag.