[PaulB]

Just seen this on BBC News - quite why they're advertising this sort of activity, I don't know, but it does raise the question of why buildings and former business premises are allowed to fall into such disrepair when there is such an acute shortage of both affordable living and building land.

I freely admit to know nothing of the economics of this, but someone here presumably will. There's presumably and alternate POV too....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... elict-home

[Sooty25]

searching "urban explorer" on Youtube does bring up some interesting stuff even if the commentators/explorers are a bit cringeworthy at times. RAF Sculthorpe is on there.

I guess one point that does arise from it though is reminding that trespass is a civil offence which is hard to enforce unless damage is caused. So if you catch some "oik" in your hangar and he claims to be "an urban explorer doing no damage", we basically have to accept that.

Shame it doesn't apply to aircraft, we could all drop into Plymouth for a picnic!

[eltonioni]

It's private property and so long as it's not a hazard or creating market failure it's exactly how it should be in a capitalist society. I'm more concerned at the number of perfectly viable rural buildings that have fallen into disrepair because planning authorities dare not take on the NIMBYs despite the owners wanting to turn them into homes.

There's no shortage of building land, just a shortage of planning consents.

[chevvron]

There are several derelict garden nurseries round my area; at least 2 of them got consent to build houses on and much to the surprise of the planning authority, they are having 4/5 bed houses built on them instead of the 'starter' homes the council thought would be built.

[johnm]

The main problem with rebuilding and new building around existing settlements is the failure to upgrade infrastructure in an orderly fashion.

Fairford Town Council is going after Cotswold District Council, who permitted development on condition infrastructure (especially surface water and foul drainage) was upgraded and then allowed the development to complete and be sold while the infrastructure work hadn't even started.

[eltonioni]

It is possible that technical construction programming needs to be different to the council's wish list, but if the planning conditions haven't been discharged, or if a different building has been built, it doesn't have planning consent.

That can have various ramifications which start with the authority taking enforcement action, and strictly means that mortgages (or other debt) have been granted on an illegal building. Obviously it's potentially very messy but it's surprising how often we see amateur hour in this business.

[johnm]

The issue for Fairford is CDC's failure to take enforcement action, messy for the poor blighters who bought the houses I know, but.....Amateur hour and town planning being an oxymoron are all too prevalent these days.

[kanga]

locally there is a small (~30 houses) development, almost complete but not yet occupied, where a spot check by LA Officers showed that developer has built 2 more houses than on application as permitted. LA is threatening to order entire development to be demolished and building to be restarted. 'Negotiations continue'.

Poetic justice would be to allow development to be completed, but have 2 of the resulting dwellings (of LA's choice) to be gifted to LA for social housing ..

[cockney steve]

Nay, Kanga, you're much too soft! Anyone brazen-enough to stick in an extra ~6% would, on my watch, have the 2 extra units "confiscated " PLUS an extra 4, penalty . Or, as someone else suggested take enforcement action to knock the whole development down and make sure the land was parcelled-up in accordance with the plans. Alternatively, a L.A .CPO of the whole "illegal " site for Council houses, for which their planning committee could give retrospective approval.
Plan 1....Their greed is punished, they have all the extra work and zero gain, plus the higher density reduces the value of the "legal" part.
Plan 2 seems spiteful and mendacious. there's a need for local housing, otherwise they wouldn't have been built.
Plan3 Developer is punished, Community gets nice council -houses, everyone comes out clean and , hopefully, the builder learns a lesson that a smaller profit is better than none.

My old Garage-property backed onto a field. Local builder had permission for, IIRC, 7 detached houses. He flouted tree- preservation orders and shunted together the row adjoining my boundary to fit 4 instead of 3. Also tried to dig away about a 20 foot wide strip of banking (my pitch had about a 30 foot drop onto the development.
Yes, he got a substantial fine for destroying trees, yes, he reinstated my banking, yes he got retrospective planning for the extra house..."KERCHINGGGG ! (They went for about 400K, so nett profit EXTRA ~230K that's a nice little bonus and that's why unscrupulous developers take the mick with spineless authorities.

[chevvron]

locally there is a small (~30 houses) development, almost complete but not yet occupied, where a spot check by LA Officers showed that developer has built 2 more houses than on application as permitted. LA is threatening to order entire development to be demolished and building to be restarted. 'Negotiations continue'.

Poetic justice would be to allow development to be completed, but have 2 of the resulting dwellings (of LA's choice) to be gifted to LA for social housing ..

When I was living in Chesham, Bucks a similar thing happened.
Developer was given consent for 12 houses on a plot, but by reducing the space between them, actually built 13.
Planning officers inspected and discovered the extra house had been built on an established public right of way and the developer was required to demolish it!

[defcribed]

locally there is a small (~30 houses) development, almost complete but not yet occupied, where a spot check by LA Officers showed that developer has built 2 more houses than on application as permitted. LA is threatening to order entire development to be demolished and building to be restarted. 'Negotiations continue'.

Poetic justice would be to allow development to be completed, but have 2 of the resulting dwellings (of LA's choice) to be gifted to LA for social housing ..

Unfortunately, the level of piss-taking by developers has reached a level that I think something is needed 'pour encourager les autres'.

The whole thing should be knocked down, permission for what should have been built should be withdrawn, and the developers driven into bankruptcy if at all possible. If action has no consequence, people don't follow rules. There shouldn't be any negotiations, just firm action deliberately planned to cost the developers as much as possible.

[defcribed]

The main problem with rebuilding and new building around existing settlements is the failure to upgrade infrastructure in an orderly fashion.

Try visiting Banbury.

It isn't possible to enter or leave the town in any direction at all without passing a large housing development in progress. The town is basically expanding by approximately half a mile to a mile in all directions.

The roads in the town are already clogged to the point of complete farce. No new infrastructure is planned, to my knowledge. The hospital is at risk of closure.

[johnm]

Town planning has become an oxymoron, not because planners are stupid, because politicians are. Irrespective of party there’s no concept of a setting a coherent policy framework within which professionals can work effectively and where outsourcing and privatisation have their place.

It’s very worrying because more and more knee jerk actions from politicians in response to problems is just making things worse and worse.

Hearing ministers and opposition spokesmen on TV and radio shows a group of people whose idiocy is breathtaking.

[chevvron]

Hearing ministers and opposition spokesmen on TV and radio shows a group of people whose idiocy is breathtaking.

My opinion is that so many nowadays have gone straight from university into politics and never had a 'real' job that they're so 'mollycoddled' by the MP lifestyle they have no concept what it's like (other than being an MP) having to work for a living.

[kanga]

..
My opinion is that so many nowadays have gone straight from university into politics and never had a 'real' job that they're so 'mollycoddled' by the MP lifestyle they have no concept what it's like (other than being an MP) having to work for a living.

This seems often to be true of those MPs of the two major national Parties who are comparatively young when they enter the House, when they first become a PPS, a Junior Minister or Shadow, .. and often then become well known as Cabinet Ministers or Shadows. Often their relative youthfulness may help their final career boost because they thus seem telegenic. Fortunately, such are a minority even within those Parties, and almost unknown in the others, partly because except in SNP and DUP prospects for Government careers and even safe seats allowing such careers are pretty iffy

Other MPs, those with some 'hinterland' and lateish into any or national politics, have often made excellent members and Chairs of Select Committees.