Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Paddington Bear]

If we’re not going to build in Croydon, a new town of zero architectural merit inside the m25, then we should either give up or discuss a population policy

[_Os_]

Crazy Tweet. I spent lunch going down that road on Google street view and looking it up on Zoopla.

The obvious point is developing on a residential street, is brownfield development. Brownfield just means building where there was already a building. That is the legal definition. Is knocking down a house and building a bigger building now greenfield development?!

It's definitely not a shithole, but it all looks like it's built between the 1920s and 1970s (the whole street definitely wasn't put up at the same time), most of them have been extended and aren't original. There's no basis for this being a conservation area. 81, 98, 96a (numbers may be out going off street view) have already been demolished and flats put up, with car parking at the front and multiple letter boxes. 69a looks a plot has been divided and a small house designed in the Netherlands has been put up. It's not like there's no building on the street, there's no "in keeping with the area" argument.

Room to dispute that street being for "family homes". If you went back over 20 years houses on that street would've been going for under £200k. 10 years ago they were about £300k-ish. Now they're £600k to £1m+. Over a decade ago two people earning £30k could've afforded that street, it would be the sort of place someone could've reasonably expected if they had done okay (nothing exceptional). Today it needs two people both earning £60k and a larger deposit, you would have to be doing really quite well to afford that street.

Quite a lot going on with this "do not develop in Purley which definitely isn't Croydon" also. One end of that road is in a very built up area that just looks like ... urban London/Croydon.

You can tell what has happened on that street, they all think they're millionaires through their own hard work all on their own (rather than there just being crazy house price inflation). They also now think there should be no development on their street, presumably because they're scared of development damaging the value of their house. In their minds they're not living on what's basically an average street in Croydon. House price inflation has fried a lot of brains. They still "own" (probably hold the mortgage) one house. If they get rid of it, it's exchanged for another house/form of accommodation, which has also increased in price.

A crazy situation, it now makes economic sense to demolish a £600k-£1m+ asset, then spend more money putting up a larger building. All because only large house builders with massive resources and friends in high places get to develop the holy greenfields, which really means a patch of mud no one cares about and of no economic or environmental value. The same house builders with a vested interest in keeping prices high. It's not even a remotely well functioning market.

[_Os_]

Maybe we should start a "NIMBY watch" on this thread? My submission, NIMBYs against building on Tesco car parks.

Tesco car park in London. Flats by an Elizabeth line tube station and main road. Over 3300 signatures from local residents objecting, NIMBYs took it to the high court, local Labour MP against it, 4 political parties and the TUC against it. The development ended up being scaled back:
https://capx.co/nimby-watch-tescos-toxic-towers/
Tesco car park in Manchester. Plans to build flats rejected after over 250 objections from local residents forcing it to be scaled back:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-22253717
https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north ... caled-back

Got to protect those asphalt fields wedged between main roads and railway lines, scale back all development on Tesco car parks!

[SaintK]

Happy Families

If you are a Conservative Party member, you have more power than they want you to know about.
DID YOU KNOW? If 10% of an Association’s membership send in a letter of no confidence about their MP, we can start deselecting those Conservative MPs who aren’t actually being conservative.
So for example, an Association with 150 members would only need 15 letters of no confidence to go in to call for a Special General Meeting.

https://conservativepost.co.uk/calli ... -enough/

[Hal Jordan]

Having lived on Purley as a lad, the idea of it being a place of architectural merit is risible, Library aside. Nice enough suburbia, but not exactly Regency Row. I remember when they ripped up the old waterworks to completely remodel the Purley Cross junction to put in a lovely new Tescos. No one griped about that.

The main groaning my parents did was about small hours revellers returning to their cars to drink drive home after a night at the club round the corner, the fabulous Cinderella's Rockafellas.

Also, Purley definitely isn't in Croydon.

[I like neeps]

Maybe we should start a "NIMBY watch" on this thread? My submission, NIMBYs against building on Tesco car parks.

Tesco car park in London. Flats by an Elizabeth line tube station and main road. Over 3300 signatures from local residents objecting, NIMBYs took it to the high court, local Labour MP against it, 4 political parties and the TUC against it. The development ended up being scaled back:
https://capx.co/nimby-watch-tescos-toxic-towers/
Tesco car park in Manchester. Plans to build flats rejected after over 250 objections from local residents forcing it to be scaled back:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-22253717
https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north ... caled-back

Got to protect those asphalt fields wedged between main roads and railway lines, scale back all development on Tesco car parks!

It's interesting that Labour nationally are calling themselves YIMBYs but locally side with the NIMBYs.

[robmatic]

Maybe we should start a "NIMBY watch" on this thread? My submission, NIMBYs against building on Tesco car parks.

Tesco car park in London. Flats by an Elizabeth line tube station and main road. Over 3300 signatures from local residents objecting, NIMBYs took it to the high court, local Labour MP against it, 4 political parties and the TUC against it. The development ended up being scaled back:
https://capx.co/nimby-watch-tescos-toxic-towers/
Tesco car park in Manchester. Plans to build flats rejected after over 250 objections from local residents forcing it to be scaled back:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-22253717
https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north ... caled-back

Got to protect those asphalt fields wedged between main roads and railway lines, scale back all development on Tesco car parks!

It's interesting that Labour nationally are calling themselves YIMBYs but locally side with the NIMBYs.

Just like the median voter.

[Paddington Bear]

Maybe we should start a "NIMBY watch" on this thread? My submission, NIMBYs against building on Tesco car parks.

Tesco car park in London. Flats by an Elizabeth line tube station and main road. Over 3300 signatures from local residents objecting, NIMBYs took it to the high court, local Labour MP against it, 4 political parties and the TUC against it. The development ended up being scaled back:
https://capx.co/nimby-watch-tescos-toxic-towers/
Tesco car park in Manchester. Plans to build flats rejected after over 250 objections from local residents forcing it to be scaled back:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-22253717
https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north ... caled-back

Got to protect those asphalt fields wedged between main roads and railway lines, scale back all development on Tesco car parks!

It's interesting that Labour nationally are calling themselves YIMBYs but locally side with the NIMBYs.

Lib Dems are the absolute worst for this.

To defend Labour slightly, if they mean what they say on planning reform it actually doesn’t matter so much what local councils think.

It’s an issue I’ve been thinking a fair amount about recently for various reasons. I’m from the Chilterns which is remarkably beautiful for where it is and has some genuinely rare ecosystems in its chalk streams. Were it not for the green belt it’s likely much more of it would resemble the large towns along the hills - Wycombe/Aylesbury/Hemel/Luton. Enough to make anyone shudder. I don’t want it all built on. We’re a small country with a dense population and need to be careful.

With this being said, people need to live somewhere, and London/SE England can justifiably be described as having a housing emergency now. This makes us all poorer and has quite significant implications for the future of the country. No tiny violin, but I have a decent job as does my wife, we both save fairly diligently and I inherited deposit sized money when my grandmother died. We still couldn’t afford to buy a house in London (which we wanted to do and still ideally would), so moved a little further out. What is now Greater London has been home to at least part of my family for at least 500 years. We’ve got to rectify it and there’s no path to doing so that doesn’t involve development.

My solution that I think has some chance of being viable, politically and otherwise: separate planning criteria for the “Special Economic Area” - i.e. within the M25. Stricter environmental restrictions in the AONBs to compensate.
What this could mean would be:
1) greater permitted development rights within the m25. Outside of the very few pre-Victorian buildings, why is anyone denied an extension inside the largest city in Europe?
2) zoning. So much of London is a sea of semi-detached houses (large amounts are now flats or HMOs anyway). If developers had greater regulatory certainty that they could build up, they would do. You don’t have to love the development at Colindale/Brent Cross to accept it is housing far more people where we have infrastructure to support them. None of the new stuff is particularly ugly nor beautiful, same as what came before it.
3) new towns. There is loads of space to do this within the M25, but we don’t need to sprawl. Notting Hill is a postage stamp but has a population of 180,000, if we accept that London is around 1,000,000 housing units short we’d need around five parcels of land Notting Hill-sized that we can connect at low-ish cost (covered by land uplift) to existing transport infrastructure. A few examples:
- near me is Harefield, essentially the last village left of Middlesex. It could easily be connected to the Central Line (as was the initial intention) and there’s enough space there to build an exceptionally dense but attractive new development without disturbing many people at all.
- High Beech on the far side of Epping Forest. Same principle and you’d just need to run the Chingford Overground line through a couple of golf courses.
- Stapleford Abbotts. The most space of the three but a little bit more of a challenge on transport. Wouldn’t be too hard to get it a branch shuttle and connect to the Elizabeth Line.
- the area round Biggin Hill has *tonnes* of space to develop.
4) my patented ‘build on shitholes’ policy. Who cares if some of the new tower blocks in Wembley are ugly? It was always grim. Same goes for Watford/Croydon and half a hundred other places.

We know the market exists, it would materially affect probably 5-10 constituencies in outer London and not matter massively to the rest. The transport pays for itself as it always tends to in London.
You could even add in a set amount of the new homes are reserved at lower prices for first time buyers.

‘Bloke on internet solves the housing crisis’ no doubt will lead the 10 o’clock news.

[Biffer]

We need higher density housing in our cities. We have far too many low rise and not enough medium rise buildings. So Londons population density is far lower than other big cities it would compare itself to - Paris, New York and Tokyo for example.

This report goes in to detail on those four cities and compares them.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/aird ... cities.pdf

[Jethro]

[I like neeps]

Maybe we should start a "NIMBY watch" on this thread? My submission, NIMBYs against building on Tesco car parks.

Tesco car park in London. Flats by an Elizabeth line tube station and main road. Over 3300 signatures from local residents objecting, NIMBYs took it to the high court, local Labour MP against it, 4 political parties and the TUC against it. The development ended up being scaled back:
https://capx.co/nimby-watch-tescos-toxic-towers/
Tesco car park in Manchester. Plans to build flats rejected after over 250 objections from local residents forcing it to be scaled back:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-22253717
https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north ... caled-back

Got to protect those asphalt fields wedged between main roads and railway lines, scale back all development on Tesco car parks!

It's interesting that Labour nationally are calling themselves YIMBYs but locally side with the NIMBYs.

Lib Dems are the absolute worst for this.

To defend Labour slightly, if they mean what they say on planning reform it actually doesn’t matter so much what local councils think.

It’s an issue I’ve been thinking a fair amount about recently for various reasons. I’m from the Chilterns which is remarkably beautiful for where it is and has some genuinely rare ecosystems in its chalk streams. Were it not for the green belt it’s likely much more of it would resemble the large towns along the hills - Wycombe/Aylesbury/Hemel/Luton. Enough to make anyone shudder. I don’t want it all built on. We’re a small country with a dense population and need to be careful.

With this being said, people need to live somewhere, and London/SE England can justifiably be described as having a housing emergency now. This makes us all poorer and has quite significant implications for the future of the country. No tiny violin, but I have a decent job as does my wife, we both save fairly diligently and I inherited deposit sized money when my grandmother died. We still couldn’t afford to buy a house in London (which we wanted to do and still ideally would), so moved a little further out. What is now Greater London has been home to at least part of my family for at least 500 years. We’ve got to rectify it and there’s no path to doing so that doesn’t involve development.

My solution that I think has some chance of being viable, politically and otherwise: separate planning criteria for the “Special Economic Area” - i.e. within the M25. Stricter environmental restrictions in the AONBs to compensate.
What this could mean would be:
1) greater permitted development rights within the m25. Outside of the very few pre-Victorian buildings, why is anyone denied an extension inside the largest city in Europe?
2) zoning. So much of London is a sea of semi-detached houses (large amounts are now flats or HMOs anyway). If developers had greater regulatory certainty that they could build up, they would do. You don’t have to love the development at Colindale/Brent Cross to accept it is housing far more people where we have infrastructure to support them. None of the new stuff is particularly ugly nor beautiful, same as what came before it.
3) new towns. There is loads of space to do this within the M25, but we don’t need to sprawl. Notting Hill is a postage stamp but has a population of 180,000, if we accept that London is around 1,000,000 housing units short we’d need around five parcels of land Notting Hill-sized that we can connect at low-ish cost (covered by land uplift) to existing transport infrastructure. A few examples:
- near me is Harefield, essentially the last village left of Middlesex. It could easily be connected to the Central Line (as was the initial intention) and there’s enough space there to build an exceptionally dense but attractive new development without disturbing many people at all.
- High Beech on the far side of Epping Forest. Same principle and you’d just need to run the Chingford Overground line through a couple of golf courses.
- Stapleford Abbotts. The most space of the three but a little bit more of a challenge on transport. Wouldn’t be too hard to get it a branch shuttle and connect to the Elizabeth Line.
- the area round Biggin Hill has *tonnes* of space to develop.
4) my patented ‘build on shitholes’ policy. Who cares if some of the new tower blocks in Wembley are ugly? It was always grim. Same goes for Watford/Croydon and half a hundred other places.

We know the market exists, it would materially affect probably 5-10 constituencies in outer London and not matter massively to the rest. The transport pays for itself as it always tends to in London.
You could even add in a set amount of the new homes are reserved at lower prices for first time buyers.

‘Bloke on internet solves the housing crisis’ no doubt will lead the 10 o’clock news.

As a constituent of Layla Moran yes aware the Lib Dems are awful. As are the Greens actually. But, the Lib Dems nor the Greens are going to have any actual power anytime soon. So their national policies are for the birds. The Lib Dems will function as a Tory protest vote in the blue wall as always, and the Greens as a Labour protest in well to do metropolitan areas. I wonder what will happen when Labour are in power if their rhetoric of build and develop is met by nimby MPs not wanting to piss off their constituents.

I do agree to a point, I love the Chilterns and the Cotswolds and yes you don't want identikit commuter towns popping up everywhere. But equally around where I am, there's a lot of areas clearly for development as they're just empty fields mostly or wasteland that gets fought tooth and nail on.

I also don't think your keep sh*tholes sh*t policy will get much traction. When I've been to Wembley or going through on the train the flats they've thrown up actually look quite good I think. You could do that everywhere.

[petej]

Enjoyed this.

[sockwithaticket]

The main thing with bulding dense is you've got to make something people want to live in and can see themselves living in long term (particularly if trends of long term single or couples without children are maintained) and one of the really, really basic things that never seems to get brought up is sound-proofing. We need some big legislation on mandatory sound-proofing of flats/housing with shared walls,ceilings and floors because developers aren't doing it otherwise. People bitch and moan about noisy neighbours a lot, but people should be able to hoover, have a row, have sex, listen to music, watch a modern film (with all the crazy noise fluctuations that seem to be baked in) without it being audible to neighbours unless the volume really is excessive. Dense living has to be palatable rather than something people are desperate to escape.

[dpedin]

The main thing with bulding dense is you've got to make something people want to live in and can see themselves living in long term (particularly if trends of long term single or couples without children are maintained) and one of the really, really basic things that never seems to get brought up is sound-proofing. We need some big legislation on mandatory sound-proofing of flats/housing with shared walls,ceilings and floors because developers aren't doing it otherwise. People bitch and moan about noisy neighbours a lot, but people should be able to hoover, have a row, have sex, listen to music, watch a modern film (with all the crazy noise fluctuations that seem to be baked in) without it being audible to neighbours unless the volume really is excessive. Dense living has to be palatable rather than something people are desperate to escape.

Old tenements in Scotland are very desirable for younger folk in many parts of major cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. They are usually close to city centre and have large rooms, high ceilings and are well built. Downside is lack of parking, roof repairs and stairs. Problem has been many are now being used as AirB&B rentals for tourists hence attempts to control short term lets in Edinburgh. Even a one bed flat can go for £200k and a big 3/4 flat in popular area like Marchmont can fetch £400k-£500k+. Lots of more modern flats are being built and sell well although dont attract same high prices. However still a strong market for luxury modern flats which can cost a small fortune. However I agree that many new build flats are small, low ceilings and poor soundproofing and designed to maximize plot size at expense of local amenities. It is a shame we haven't learnt from the past.

[Biffer]

The main thing with bulding dense is you've got to make something people want to live in and can see themselves living in long term (particularly if trends of long term single or couples without children are maintained) and one of the really, really basic things that never seems to get brought up is sound-proofing. We need some big legislation on mandatory sound-proofing of flats/housing with shared walls,ceilings and floors because developers aren't doing it otherwise. People bitch and moan about noisy neighbours a lot, but people should be able to hoover, have a row, have sex, listen to music, watch a modern film (with all the crazy noise fluctuations that seem to be baked in) without it being audible to neighbours unless the volume really is excessive. Dense living has to be palatable rather than something people are desperate to escape.

Old tenements in Scotland are very desirable for younger folk in many parts of major cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. They are usually close to city centre and have large rooms, high ceilings and are well built. Downside is lack of parking, roof repairs and stairs. Problem has been many are now being used as AirB&B rentals for tourists hence attempts to control short term lets in Edinburgh. Even a one bed flat can go for £200k and a big 3/4 flat in popular area like Marchmont can fetch £400k-£500k+. Lots of more modern flats are being built and sell well although dont attract same high prices. However still a strong market for luxury modern flats which can cost a small fortune. However I agree that many new build flats are small, low ceilings and poor soundproofing and designed to maximize plot size at expense of local amenities. It is a shame we haven't learnt from the past.

Yeah, they're very desirable properties. And within Edinburgh, public transport is pretty good, so there are a lot of people who just don't bother with a car at all. But it's all about how you build your infrastructure, both the properties themselves and the supporting infrastructure of the city. Joined up thinking in government? In this country?

[Jockaline]

The main thing with bulding dense is you've got to make something people want to live in and can see themselves living in long term (particularly if trends of long term single or couples without children are maintained) and one of the really, really basic things that never seems to get brought up is sound-proofing. We need some big legislation on mandatory sound-proofing of flats/housing with shared walls,ceilings and floors because developers aren't doing it otherwise. People bitch and moan about noisy neighbours a lot, but people should be able to hoover, have a row, have sex, listen to music, watch a modern film (with all the crazy noise fluctuations that seem to be baked in) without it being audible to neighbours unless the volume really is excessive. Dense living has to be palatable rather than something people are desperate to escape.

Old tenements in Scotland are very desirable for younger folk in many parts of major cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. They are usually close to city centre and have large rooms, high ceilings and are well built. Downside is lack of parking, roof repairs and stairs. Problem has been many are now being used as AirB&B rentals for tourists hence attempts to control short term lets in Edinburgh. Even a one bed flat can go for £200k and a big 3/4 flat in popular area like Marchmont can fetch £400k-£500k+. Lots of more modern flats are being built and sell well although dont attract same high prices. However still a strong market for luxury modern flats which can cost a small fortune. However I agree that many new build flats are small, low ceilings and poor soundproofing and designed to maximize plot size at expense of local amenities. It is a shame we haven't learnt from the past.

Prices are a bit low. The one bed flat (not ground) in good area sold for £360K last year. I've moved now as wanting a garden and parking was a nightmare, having non-restricted parking has been hugely liberating, I get visitors as they can park too, and mostly live a bit further afield.

[C69]

The main thing with bulding dense is you've got to make something people want to live in and can see themselves living in long term (particularly if trends of long term single or couples without children are maintained) and one of the really, really basic things that never seems to get brought up is sound-proofing. We need some big legislation on mandatory sound-proofing of flats/housing with shared walls,ceilings and floors because developers aren't doing it otherwise. People bitch and moan about noisy neighbours a lot, but people should be able to hoover, have a row, have sex, listen to music, watch a modern film (with all the crazy noise fluctuations that seem to be baked in) without it being audible to neighbours unless the volume really is excessive. Dense living has to be palatable rather than something people are desperate to escape.

Old tenements in Scotland are very desirable for younger folk in many parts of major cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. They are usually close to city centre and have large rooms, high ceilings and are well built. Downside is lack of parking, roof repairs and stairs. Problem has been many are now being used as AirB&B rentals for tourists hence attempts to control short term lets in Edinburgh. Even a one bed flat can go for £200k and a big 3/4 flat in popular area like Marchmont can fetch £400k-£500k+. Lots of more modern flats are being built and sell well although dont attract same high prices. However still a strong market for luxury modern flats which can cost a small fortune. However I agree that many new build flats are small, low ceilings and poor soundproofing and designed to maximize plot size at expense of local amenities. It is a shame we haven't learnt from the past.

Yeah, they're very desirable properties. And within Edinburgh, public transport is pretty good, so there are a lot of people who just don't bother with a car at all. But it's all about how you build your infrastructure, both the properties themselves and the supporting infrastructure of the city. Joined up thinking in government? In this country?

Is the tram system sorted now?

[Biffer]

Old tenements in Scotland are very desirable for younger folk in many parts of major cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc. They are usually close to city centre and have large rooms, high ceilings and are well built. Downside is lack of parking, roof repairs and stairs. Problem has been many are now being used as AirB&B rentals for tourists hence attempts to control short term lets in Edinburgh. Even a one bed flat can go for £200k and a big 3/4 flat in popular area like Marchmont can fetch £400k-£500k+. Lots of more modern flats are being built and sell well although dont attract same high prices. However still a strong market for luxury modern flats which can cost a small fortune. However I agree that many new build flats are small, low ceilings and poor soundproofing and designed to maximize plot size at expense of local amenities. It is a shame we haven't learnt from the past.

Yeah, they're very desirable properties. And within Edinburgh, public transport is pretty good, so there are a lot of people who just don't bother with a car at all. But it's all about how you build your infrastructure, both the properties themselves and the supporting infrastructure of the city. Joined up thinking in government? In this country?

Is the tram system sorted now?

Running from Newhaven to the airport, consultations ongoing about extending to complete the loop to Granton and go out to the Hospital and Musselburgh. But we've always had a decent bus service too, as it's still publicly owned. And it's a small, dense city so a lot of it is walkable / cyclable.

[Hal Jordan]

Sunak and his client journalists rattling the stick in the swill bucket marked "The ECHR is blocking the Rwanda policy, we should leave", I see.

[robmatic]

Yeah, they're very desirable properties. And within Edinburgh, public transport is pretty good, so there are a lot of people who just don't bother with a car at all. But it's all about how you build your infrastructure, both the properties themselves and the supporting infrastructure of the city. Joined up thinking in government? In this country?

Is the tram system sorted now?

Running from Newhaven to the airport, consultations ongoing about extending to complete the loop to Granton and go out to the Hospital and Musselburgh. But we've always had a decent bus service too, as it's still publicly owned. And it's a small, dense city so a lot of it is walkable / cyclable.

The Nimbys are out against the tram extension though, from what I can gather online, because the proposed route goes on the Roseburn Path and running a tram on a disused railway bed would be too easy/disadvantage the cyclists who currently use that route.

You are right about the bus service and density of the city centre. Certainly before I emigrated I was able to live in Edinburgh for 15 years without needing a car.

[fishfoodie]

Sunak and his client journalists rattling the stick in the swill bucket marked "The ECHR is blocking the Rwanda policy, we should leave", I see.

The latest MRP Poll has them shitting themselves, & this is just another desperate piece of appeasement ahead of the local results, & also a vain attempt to old onto voters who will vote for Reform

The poll might show them getting ~150 seats, which is terrible, but there are so many of those seats that are within 5%, that by the time a GE is called, that gap could have evaporated, & they will probably end up with less than 100 !

[Biffer]

Is the tram system sorted now?

Running from Newhaven to the airport, consultations ongoing about extending to complete the loop to Granton and go out to the Hospital and Musselburgh. But we've always had a decent bus service too, as it's still publicly owned. And it's a small, dense city so a lot of it is walkable / cyclable.

The Nimbys are out against the tram extension though, from what I can gather online, because the proposed route goes on the Roseburn Path and running a tram on a disused railway bed would be too easy/disadvantage the cyclists who currently use that route.

You are right about the bus service and density of the city centre. Certainly before I emigrated I was able to live in Edinburgh for 15 years without needing a car.

Yeah, the Roseburn path is a bit of an issue - it's a really well used cycle and walkway, and a green corridor that's quite valued by a lot of people. It's a difficult one to square away, because there isn't space for another off road cycleway. There's an alternative proposal to come up Orchard Brae but that'd involve going over Dean Bridge, and you can imagine the absolute shitstorm that would cause! I don't really see the value in taking it from Roseburn over that way - revising our ideas to take it from Granton along to Barnton, then splitting out to head towards the bridges on one arm and join the airport line on the other makes more sense to me (and is probably less problematic). But the stuff out to the ERI and beyond is right and proper I reckon.

[_Os_]

Maybe we should start a "NIMBY watch" on this thread? My submission, NIMBYs against building on Tesco car parks.

Tesco car park in London. Flats by an Elizabeth line tube station and main road. Over 3300 signatures from local residents objecting, NIMBYs took it to the high court, local Labour MP against it, 4 political parties and the TUC against it. The development ended up being scaled back:
https://capx.co/nimby-watch-tescos-toxic-towers/
Tesco car park in Manchester. Plans to build flats rejected after over 250 objections from local residents forcing it to be scaled back:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-22253717
https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north ... caled-back

Got to protect those asphalt fields wedged between main roads and railway lines, scale back all development on Tesco car parks!

It's interesting that Labour nationally are calling themselves YIMBYs but locally side with the NIMBYs.

Lib Dems are the absolute worst for this.

To defend Labour slightly, if they mean what they say on planning reform it actually doesn’t matter so much what local councils think.

It’s an issue I’ve been thinking a fair amount about recently for various reasons. I’m from the Chilterns which is remarkably beautiful for where it is and has some genuinely rare ecosystems in its chalk streams. Were it not for the green belt it’s likely much more of it would resemble the large towns along the hills - Wycombe/Aylesbury/Hemel/Luton. Enough to make anyone shudder. I don’t want it all built on. We’re a small country with a dense population and need to be careful.

With this being said, people need to live somewhere, and London/SE England can justifiably be described as having a housing emergency now. This makes us all poorer and has quite significant implications for the future of the country. No tiny violin, but I have a decent job as does my wife, we both save fairly diligently and I inherited deposit sized money when my grandmother died. We still couldn’t afford to buy a house in London (which we wanted to do and still ideally would), so moved a little further out. What is now Greater London has been home to at least part of my family for at least 500 years. We’ve got to rectify it and there’s no path to doing so that doesn’t involve development.

My solution that I think has some chance of being viable, politically and otherwise: separate planning criteria for the “Special Economic Area” - i.e. within the M25. Stricter environmental restrictions in the AONBs to compensate.
What this could mean would be:
1) greater permitted development rights within the m25. Outside of the very few pre-Victorian buildings, why is anyone denied an extension inside the largest city in Europe?
2) zoning. So much of London is a sea of semi-detached houses (large amounts are now flats or HMOs anyway). If developers had greater regulatory certainty that they could build up, they would do. You don’t have to love the development at Colindale/Brent Cross to accept it is housing far more people where we have infrastructure to support them. None of the new stuff is particularly ugly nor beautiful, same as what came before it.
3) new towns. There is loads of space to do this within the M25, but we don’t need to sprawl. Notting Hill is a postage stamp but has a population of 180,000, if we accept that London is around 1,000,000 housing units short we’d need around five parcels of land Notting Hill-sized that we can connect at low-ish cost (covered by land uplift) to existing transport infrastructure. A few examples:
- near me is Harefield, essentially the last village left of Middlesex. It could easily be connected to the Central Line (as was the initial intention) and there’s enough space there to build an exceptionally dense but attractive new development without disturbing many people at all.
- High Beech on the far side of Epping Forest. Same principle and you’d just need to run the Chingford Overground line through a couple of golf courses.
- Stapleford Abbotts. The most space of the three but a little bit more of a challenge on transport. Wouldn’t be too hard to get it a branch shuttle and connect to the Elizabeth Line.
- the area round Biggin Hill has *tonnes* of space to develop.
4) my patented ‘build on shitholes’ policy. Who cares if some of the new tower blocks in Wembley are ugly? It was always grim. Same goes for Watford/Croydon and half a hundred other places.

We know the market exists, it would materially affect probably 5-10 constituencies in outer London and not matter massively to the rest. The transport pays for itself as it always tends to in London.
You could even add in a set amount of the new homes are reserved at lower prices for first time buyers.

‘Bloke on internet solves the housing crisis’ no doubt will lead the 10 o’clock news.

I would add these.

5. Anti land banking law. Quite a few housing developments owned by large house builders basically end up being a building site for over a decade. They have the land and get the planning permission, then build in phases at the slowest pace imaginable so they do not depress house prices in the local area. They all do this meaning supply is always artificially constrained. A "use it or lose it" law would mean if they've had planning permission for years and have done nothing, then planning permission lapses (making the land less valuable, securing planning permission is method of increasing the land value) and if the same land owner wants to reapply for the planning permission they had there's an additional penalty cost. Could even add an expropriation clause if land keeps getting planning permission and nothing is built, whereby the land is auctioned by the state, but I can see problems with that.

6. Self building has to be made a possibility. In other countries it's normal, quite common in SA for plots to be on sale. Oom is/was building his own house (started the build with the braai which was hilarious). In the UK all the new towns and expanded towns have a lot of empty space, the idea was that empty spaces would make a better environment and communities, which didn't really work. Cost cutting means councils don't maintain those empty spaces, it's common for former council estates to have developed wooded areas (which were once grass cut by the council) where drug related activity and crime takes place. Councils should be tasked with identifying plots and either building on them or auctioning them. If the possibility of building a house wasn't the preserve of big house builders a lot of price inflation would disappear.

7. Abolish leasehold. People can end up paying more to the leaseholder than on the mortgage, it's basically a double mortgage.

There would be a big problem for any government that did all of this ...

House price depreciation. I would be wary of any asset that's doubled in price over 10 years without any change in its underlying value. Since 2008 house price inflation has been used as a substitute for economic/GDP growth. People felt wealthy because the value of their house was inflating, they didn't care that younger generations wouldn't even be able to afford a house. The younger generations who managed to get mortgages feel like it's a life defining achievement to be paying off the debt on a new build for decades (by which time the house and estate may not be so great). The housing market has become a proxy for the UK economy. The vast majority of people now have the expectation that house prices always go up and any down turn is a "blip", there's not much understanding that sometimes a mortgage is a bad deal not because of interest rates etc but because the property is objectively shit. The expectation is a normal well functioning property market means ever increasing house prices. Some people have turned their house into an ATM and re-mortgage regularly.

Massive house price depreciation and then price stagnation at that new level, would mean negative equity for many. Mainly younger people would be trapped in a shit house they expected to trade out of (in which case probably better to go insolvent and start again), mainly older people would see imaginary wealth disappear but still own the house they want to live in. It would be interpreted as an economic catastrophe by a lot of people. Which makes it questionable if any government will act that strongly. But if there's no action it gets worse.

[Slick]

Running from Newhaven to the airport, consultations ongoing about extending to complete the loop to Granton and go out to the Hospital and Musselburgh. But we've always had a decent bus service too, as it's still publicly owned. And it's a small, dense city so a lot of it is walkable / cyclable.

The Nimbys are out against the tram extension though, from what I can gather online, because the proposed route goes on the Roseburn Path and running a tram on a disused railway bed would be too easy/disadvantage the cyclists who currently use that route.

You are right about the bus service and density of the city centre. Certainly before I emigrated I was able to live in Edinburgh for 15 years without needing a car.

Yeah, the Roseburn path is a bit of an issue - it's a really well used cycle and walkway, and a green corridor that's quite valued by a lot of people. It's a difficult one to square away, because there isn't space for another off road cycleway. There's an alternative proposal to come up Orchard Brae but that'd involve going over Dean Bridge, and you can imagine the absolute shitstorm that would cause! I don't really see the value in taking it from Roseburn over that way - revising our ideas to take it from Granton along to Barnton, then splitting out to head towards the bridges on one arm and join the airport line on the other makes more sense to me (and is probably less problematic). But the stuff out to the ERI and beyond is right and proper I reckon.

Yup, not sure I’d go full NIMBY accusation on this one, it’s a really great and well used green corridor and would be quite devastating. Whilst on the face of it using an old railway line makes sense you also of course have the existing road infrastructure to use. I don’t know enough about it all to be honest but on the face of it it’s a valid conversation

[I like neeps]

It's interesting, I don't think the Politico Editor or other Starmer supporting journos would offer the "tactically it's actually good to lie in politics" defence to noted liars to get what they want politically such as Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson.

[weegie01]

The Nimbys are out against the tram extension though, from what I can gather online, because the proposed route goes on the Roseburn Path and running a tram on a disused railway bed would be too easy/disadvantage the cyclists who currently use that route.

You are right about the bus service and density of the city centre. Certainly before I emigrated I was able to live in Edinburgh for 15 years without needing a car.

Yeah, the Roseburn path is a bit of an issue - it's a really well used cycle and walkway, and a green corridor that's quite valued by a lot of people. It's a difficult one to square away, because there isn't space for another off road cycleway. There's an alternative proposal to come up Orchard Brae but that'd involve going over Dean Bridge, and you can imagine the absolute shitstorm that would cause! I don't really see the value in taking it from Roseburn over that way - revising our ideas to take it from Granton along to Barnton, then splitting out to head towards the bridges on one arm and join the airport line on the other makes more sense to me (and is probably less problematic). But the stuff out to the ERI and beyond is right and proper I reckon.

Yup, not sure I’d go full NIMBY accusation on this one, it’s a really great and well used green corridor and would be quite devastating. Whilst on the face of it using an old railway line makes sense you also of course have the existing road infrastructure to use. I don’t know enough about it all to be honest but on the face of it it’s a valid conversation.

It was long ago and my memory may be rose tinted, but my recollection of living in Geneva for a short time was that they were brutal with cars. Public transport came first every time with the result that using cars was difficult, but not an issue as the public transport was efficient and frequent so everyone used it. It was not unusual to see people in full evening dress on the bus.

The prices in the centre of Edinburgh are now well out of the reach of most people. Central living is just not feasible for most people, so high quality public transport is a necessity.

When I drove through it recently I was staggered by the size and density of the development currently going up past the Gogar roundabout along Turnhouse Rd. It is just beside the tram stop, which appears to be a good thing. But may cause issues for tram users closer in by filling the trams. I'll be interested to see what is built there in terms of local shops, green spaces etc. I like the look of it and the low rise density, but if the relevant infrastructure to make it a community is not put in place there will be problems. I do not what the situation on that is.

Perth appears to have done a decent job with the big new develpment at Bertha Park. The new school, shops, gym etc were almost the first things to go in and buses run into town.

[SaintK]

All for the sake of a dick pic or two.
What an absolute twat!!!!

A senior Conservative MP has reportedly admitted to giving out the personal phone numbers of colleagues to a person he met on a dating app.
William Wragg told the Times that he gave the information after he had sent intimate pictures of himself, saying he was “scared” and “mortified”.
Leicestershire police have launched an investigation in response to reports that explicit images and flirtatious messages were sent to MPs as part of an alleged “spear-phishing” attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... -contact

[Rhubarb & Custard]

All for the sake of a dick pic or two.
What an absolute twat!!!!

A senior Conservative MP has reportedly admitted to giving out the personal phone numbers of colleagues to a person he met on a dating app.
William Wragg told the Times that he gave the information after he had sent intimate pictures of himself, saying he was “scared” and “mortified”.
Leicestershire police have launched an investigation in response to reports that explicit images and flirtatious messages were sent to MPs as part of an alleged “spear-phishing” attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... -contact

Just so pleasing to have spent so, so many hours on GDPR only to see an MP act like this. Makes it all feel worthwhile

And I do recall every now and then it being mentioned there were some serious sanctions for egregious breaches

[clydecloggie]

Far more embarrassing is the potential 12 million+ people who still want to vote for them.

What exactly was it that inspired you all, folks? Form an orderly line.

I imagine that a not insignificant portion of that 12 million are our benevolent elders, who've always voted Tory and are not for the turning no matter what...

Plus second generation immigrant Asian women who might look up to certain MPs they aspire to be?

Not just women. It's amazing how many well-educated Britons of Asian descent I've spoken to recently - mostly working in education or the third sector, even - said how proud they are of Sunak, Braverman etc. (and, admittedly, Humza Yousaf) for making it to the top of British politics. For some of them that simple fact matters more than the madness of the actual policies they're pursuing (and that, again, includes Humza Yousaf and the crazy hate crime scheme).

[geordie_6]

All for the sake of a dick pic or two.
What an absolute twat!!!!

A senior Conservative MP has reportedly admitted to giving out the personal phone numbers of colleagues to a person he met on a dating app.
William Wragg told the Times that he gave the information after he had sent intimate pictures of himself, saying he was “scared” and “mortified”.
Leicestershire police have launched an investigation in response to reports that explicit images and flirtatious messages were sent to MPs as part of an alleged “spear-phishing” attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... -contact

Just so pleasing to have spent so, so many hours on GDPR only to see an MP act like this. Makes it all feel worthwhile

And I do recall every now and then it being mentioned there were some serious sanctions for egregious breaches

Bet he didn't do his e-learning.

[Lobby]

All for the sake of a dick pic or two.
What an absolute twat!!!!

A senior Conservative MP has reportedly admitted to giving out the personal phone numbers of colleagues to a person he met on a dating app.
William Wragg told the Times that he gave the information after he had sent intimate pictures of himself, saying he was “scared” and “mortified”.
Leicestershire police have launched an investigation in response to reports that explicit images and flirtatious messages were sent to MPs as part of an alleged “spear-phishing” attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... -contact

Just so pleasing to have spent so, so many hours on GDPR only to see an MP act like this. Makes it all feel worthwhile

And I do recall every now and then it being mentioned there were some serious sanctions for egregious breaches

The potential fines for infringing an individual's data rights are substantial - a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4 per cent of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

However, GDPR only applies to organisations and not to individuals so unless it could be shown that he was processing this data on behalf of the Conservative Party or another business or organisation, I don't think GDPR applies in this case.

[C69]

So apparently 2 MPs sent dic pics back to Charlie.
How stupid are these elected officials?

[dpedin]

So apparently 2 MPs sent dic pics back to Charlie.
How stupid are these elected officials?

In days gone by these MPs would have been profoundly embarrassed by their personal conduct and offered their resignations and a PM worth their salt would have said publicly he/she reluctantly accepted them whilst telling the MPs to feck off and never darken the HoC again. However given we have had tractor porn, wanking in the office, up skirting laws voted down, 'Pincher by nature', rape and assault of wives and sexual harassment of office staff including waving dicks around in the face of secretaries then it is no wonder Hunt has said that Wragg's apology was 'very courageous' and didn't say anything about him resigning! The HoC, and the Tory party in particular, has really become a sleazy shithole without even the flimsiest public face of being contrite or embarrassed. Any other workplace ....

[ASMO]

All for the sake of a dick pic or two.
What an absolute twat!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... -contact

Just so pleasing to have spent so, so many hours on GDPR only to see an MP act like this. Makes it all feel worthwhile

And I do recall every now and then it being mentioned there were some serious sanctions for egregious breaches

The potential fines for infringing an individual's data rights are substantial - a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4 per cent of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

However, GDPR only applies to organisations and not to individuals so unless it could be shown that he was processing this data on behalf of the Conservative Party or another business or organisation, I don't think GDPR applies in this case.

An individual can be fined for GDPR breach, but what is more likely is that they will sue him in tort

[C69]

So apparently 2 MPs sent dic pics back to Charlie.
How stupid are these elected officials?

In days gone by these MPs would have been profoundly embarrassed by their personal conduct and offered their resignations and a PM worth their salt would have said publicly he/she reluctantly accepted them whilst telling the MPs to feck off and never darken the HoC again. However given we have had tractor porn, wanking in the office, up skirting laws voted down, 'Pincher by nature', rape and assault of wives and sexual harassment of office staff including waving dicks around in the face of secretaries then it is no wonder Hunt has said that Wragg's apology was 'very courageous' and didn't say anything about him resigning! The HoC, and the Tory party in particular, has really become a sleazy shithole without even the flimsiest public face of being contrite or embarrassed. Any other workplace ....

Hmmm if you put it that way.
FFS the HOC really is a fetid cesspit and the Tory Party is full of Golgothans.

[_Os_]

So apparently 2 MPs sent dic pics back to Charlie.
How stupid are these elected officials?

In days gone by these MPs would have been profoundly embarrassed by their personal conduct and offered their resignations and a PM worth their salt would have said publicly he/she reluctantly accepted them whilst telling the MPs to feck off and never darken the HoC again. However given we have had tractor porn, wanking in the office, up skirting laws voted down, 'Pincher by nature', rape and assault of wives and sexual harassment of office staff including waving dicks around in the face of secretaries then it is no wonder Hunt has said that Wragg's apology was 'very courageous' and didn't say anything about him resigning! The HoC, and the Tory party in particular, has really become a sleazy shithole without even the flimsiest public face of being contrite or embarrassed. Any other workplace ....

It's what happens when the method of candidate selection breaks down and becomes a joke. Most of the parliamentary Tory party are now morons. They're either picked by Tory head office because they're morons and will do as they're told, or picked by raging loony ex-UKIPers who have become Tory members, or some combination of both.

In the past most the morons and wrong uns would've been weeded out by the membership long before they got anywhere. Ambition is most of what's deciding who gets to the top of the Tory party now, which means a lot of over promoted unsuitable people as MPs. It's like a corporate that hasn't promoted based on merit and instead promoted the slimiest individuals who were always at the front when projects succeeded and disappeared when they failed, then cannot understand why the company is failing.

[Lobby]

Just so pleasing to have spent so, so many hours on GDPR only to see an MP act like this. Makes it all feel worthwhile

And I do recall every now and then it being mentioned there were some serious sanctions for egregious breaches

The potential fines for infringing an individual's data rights are substantial - a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4 per cent of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

However, GDPR only applies to organisations and not to individuals so unless it could be shown that he was processing this data on behalf of the Conservative Party or another business or organisation, I don't think GDPR applies in this case.

An individual can be fined for GDPR breach, but what is more likely is that they will sue him in tort

It'll come as no surprise that, rather than being hauled over the coals for his rank stupidity and the illegality of his actions, the Tory machine is trying to present him as some sort of hero.

"The chancellor has praised a Tory MP for apologising after he admitted he gave other MPs' personal phone numbers to a man on a dating app. Jeremy Hunt said William Wragg had been "courageous" in telling the Times he was sorry for the "hurt" he had caused."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68740332

[Blackmac]

The potential fines for infringing an individual's data rights are substantial - a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4 per cent of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

However, GDPR only applies to organisations and not to individuals so unless it could be shown that he was processing this data on behalf of the Conservative Party or another business or organisation, I don't think GDPR applies in this case.

An individual can be fined for GDPR breach, but what is more likely is that they will sue him in tort

It'll come as no surprise that, rather than being hauled over the coals for his rank stupidity and the illegality of his actions, the Tory machine is trying to present him as some sort of hero.

"The chancellor has praised a Tory MP for apologising after he admitted he gave other MPs' personal phone numbers to a man on a dating app. Jeremy Hunt said William Wragg had been "courageous" in telling the Times he was sorry for the "hurt" he had caused."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68740332

They really have lost all sense of decency.

[Biffer]

Just so pleasing to have spent so, so many hours on GDPR only to see an MP act like this. Makes it all feel worthwhile

And I do recall every now and then it being mentioned there were some serious sanctions for egregious breaches

The potential fines for infringing an individual's data rights are substantial - a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4 per cent of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

However, GDPR only applies to organisations and not to individuals so unless it could be shown that he was processing this data on behalf of the Conservative Party or another business or organisation, I don't think GDPR applies in this case.

An individual can be fined for GDPR breach, but what is more likely is that they will sue him in tort

So it'll depend on how he received the numbers I'd imagine. If Conservative Party Head Office gave him any of them, they'll be in big trouble

[fishfoodie]

So it begins. Privatize the profits & Nationalize the debts

Thames Water’s parent company defaults on debt

Formal notice to bondholders fires starting gun on complicated debt restructuring

Thames Water’s parent company has sent a formal notice to bondholders informing them that it has defaulted on its debt, firing the starting gun on a potentially messy restructuring at the owner of Britain’s largest water utility.

On Friday, one of the holding companies that owns Thames Water announced that interest payments due earlier this week on a £400mn bond “have not been paid” and it issued a “formal notice of default”.

The bonds were issued by Kemble Water Finance, which sits above the nearly £15bn of debt at the Thames Water utility companies. Those companies should be unaffected by the move. Kemble last week told bondholders that it intended to stop paying interest on bonds.

https://www.ft.com/content/58834a3a-875 ... 8e62fd662c