Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
Stacking the odds in favour of the developer in spite of all the contrary evidence. But then it was always thus even when I was involved with developers 15+ years ago. They never wanted to pay for infrastructure even then.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Jenrick said that, under the new rules, land will be designated in one of three categories: for growth, for renewal and for protection.

And he insisted: "We are cutting red tape, but not standards."

However, James Jamieson, the chair of the Local Government Association, said the idea that planning was a barrier to house building was "a myth".

"Nine in 10 planning applications are approved by councils, while more than a million homes given planning permission in the last decade have not yet been built," he said.

"Only last week the government's own independent report warned of the worse quality of homes not delivered through the planning system. We urge the government to heed these warnings and not further sideline the planning process."


Mr Jenrick's announcement comes a few weeks after he came under fire for his decision to grant planning permission for a £1bn property scheme in east London just before changes to local planning rules and two weeks prior to the developer donating £12,000 to the Conservatives.

The secretary of state denied any link between the events, but accepted that his decision to approve the development was unlawful.
Probably. Carp houses and Carp (or non-existent) infrastructure. Lack of any joined-up-ness between the site and the rest of the world, between adjacent sites.

Just to pick a simple topical example, the government can tear up and throw away all their recent grandstanding on cycling provision if developers will be free to put up entire estates with no cycling facilities.
And the two main vampires in this are Banks and Gladman.

They prey on people who have had land bequeathed to them, then get planning permission for it, however long it takes which multiplies the land value many fold, take their quart of blood and move on.

We are battling them hard here, the only feint hope we have now is that the land involved is still designated as Special Landscape Area which may or may not slow the process down. Sadly, the lady farmer who owned it for over 50 years and was vehemently against any development passed away last year. Now the vampires are baying for blood..

Any airfield that is currently under potential threat will get swallowed up.
It's well past time for some proper minimum standards on what can be built as a "home". Round here we have piles of flats that are far too small for real people and their stuff, zero outside space, nowhere for the bins (never mind the recycling), no parking space (by design) and nowhere for Amazon to stop while they deliver......... If covid has taught us anything it's that you have to actually live in your home (sometimes) and planning cannot rely on people being able to eat out or go to the parks/recreational facilities. And a developer's idea of "luxury" is risible - 3 feet of built in wardrobe space for a couple does not constitute a "dressing area" and there are many showers that my DH cannot use because, if he can physically get in there, he cannot lift his arms to wash his face or hair!
nallen, johnm, Charliesixtysix and 2 others liked this
I can't really answer this in detail because it would fall foul of politics, but it is a really bad idea promoted by some really bad people.
Last edited by johnm on Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cowshed liked this
Areas of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt will be protected.

For the last couple of years we could see the writing on the wall for this kind of change in residential areas, after 20+ happy years in our home we decided to take the plunge and move to a more real area.

Thankfully we have moved to an area that is covered by both of the above.
Last edited by Lockhaven on Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IainD wrote:We won’t be happy until we’ve concreted over the UK. There is so much building in Norfolk villages at the moment but no visible investment in infrastructure :(

And this is under a Conservative government; just think how much worse it would be if Labour got back into power. :shaking:
At the risk of getting into politics it might be worth remembering who masterminded the restoration of housing and the building of high quality council estates after WW2 :-)
Bill McCarthy wrote:Prefabs ?

The version I heard, to explain why prefabs were still around, was that councils tried to pull down and replace this temporary housing, as planned and promised, but the residents liked their prefabs too much and refused to move out.
johnm liked this