They say you are never too old to learn. Tonight I was cleaning the cement mixer as usual with a couple of bricks / water when I got up too close to inspect the progress. Needless to say I was soaked with cold cement water. At least my wife saw the funny side. Lesson learnt.
You really should take notice SH of someone who did that ten years ago. Rather more hardcore and less water will produce the same result. You learn the hard way.
There isn't a chronic shortage of land to build on, only a chronic shortage of land available to buy to build on. There is indeed a chronic shortage of suitable land for Joe public to buy to build on..... all owned by developers. Therein lies the problem...
Successive UK governments have allowed, or even encouraged, the domination of the UK housing market by a few large building companies. They have the ability to secure large amounts of land suitable for building on. To counteract this the government could greatly extend their recent initiative to force local councils to provide serviced building plots for self builders, which is the preferred method in many European countries. Having personally experienced a ten year struggle to obtain residential planning permission on a brownfield site within the greenbelt, the government could be brave and allow more building on the greenbelt. Some of this land is not special in any way, it is just designated as untouchable.
The green belt must be protected............ So important for the future of our country, island, planet... better to build higher volumes of affordable on brownfield sites
There are not enough brownfield sites to satisfy the increasing demand. There should be much more flexibility on greenbelt boundaries, it is possible to swap areas. There are areas of greenbelt without any apparent merit to warrant safeguarding. The problem is nobody wants houses built near their home, The Nimby's attitude dominates all serious discussion, especially in the greenbelt.
At some stage in the past the British decided that high rise living was not suitable for habitation - from some of the architectural disasters of the past; the horrendous high rise council experiments, I can understand this. But does it have to be that way ? Other countries have managed to make high rise living not only attractive but also luxurious. Looking at some of the Georgian housing found in places like Kensington, Chelsea or Bath - there has never been a form of building which was a) more attractive and b) successfull in accomodating larger groups of people in smaller areas. Have we forgotten how to build upwards without it looking hideous ? I would suggest that if you visit a city like Berlin or Hamburg you will find that very few people there live on the ground floor - yet their standards of living are generally higher than in British cities.
Part of the problem lies with the large supermarket chains who have acquired huge parcels of land for new stores that they now will no longer build due to the downturn in the economy. It is a fact that some have been built, but have never been fitted out, so stand empty. Of course no government will instruct these giants to sell off the land that they own as they cannot be seen to upset them. In the same way some of the largest house builders hold acres of building land that they sit on until the price is right to build. It would be simple to tell them that there will be no more planning permissions until some of this land is used, but profit ahead of need is more important in the UK these days.
My concerns around the Green belt are environmental... and to stop that pesky vermin homo sapiens from destroying even more of our eco system
The few major building companies have dominated the market for decades. Rather than see punitive interference from government there is a tremendous amount it could do to encourage small / self builders by creating affordable building plots. Affordable loans could be provided which adequately dovetailed in with the stage payment system of building. This availability would discourage the present land banking by the large companies and lead to an immediate drop in building land values. There is also far too much red tape in the planning process. It would give hope to the millions that would like to self build. There is a need and demand for high rise but surely most people would want to enjoy time in their own garden?
I agree with reference to having your own garden however there are other ways of dealing with this. When we lived in Hamburg we lived in an appartment on the second floor - 115 sq. metres, only 5 mins. walking distance from the river Elbe and also with south and north facing balconies. Very much old style Hamburg and, unless I were living in Bath or Kensington, difficult to better in England. In addition we had a Schrebergarten about 2 km. away - the 'Schrebergarten' is an expanded version of the British allotment garden - about the same in size but normally with something like a Dacha house ( normally wooden) built on it, which can easily function as a weekend house.
Only 10% of UK homes are self built compared to 50% in Europe. Austria has 80%, Germany and France over 60%. Surely the key to improving the dysfunctional UK housing market.
There is a massive increase in Appt living in Leeds City .... my daughter has bought one under the govt shared ownership scheme and it is a refurb of an old council block updated to really high standards. Not hard for govt to do more of if they want to invest in the people and not just profiteering
The government, quite rightly in my view, supports a free market economy. This does not mean it should allow a small group of influential house builders to dominate the housing market. Like UK small businesses in general, an abundance of thriving independent house builders would be a driving force for employment, quality and price competition. This government should be applauded for some initiatives in the housing market but they are woefully short of what is needed. Another problem is the tightening of the lending criteria, nobody wants to see 110% mortgages offered again but some of the present restrictions are too onerous.
..and incidentally the compound has small allotments to rent and a large hilly grassed area for basking and barbecuing.... That is what a housing association can do. They have also turned a big mill in Manningham leeds into affordable appartments... not sold to foreign investors. as was a recent London development.. oh the joys of a so called free market economy
The UK's exceptional growth compared to our European neighbours is due to our free market economy whereby foreign investors plough money into the country. I believe it produces more positives than negatives.
Thereby hangs the flaw in your logic... you cant have a so-called free market and have affordable housing for all. What comes first your people's housing or the free market? There is virtually nothing to applaud this govt for re housing. They are still moving the poor out of London and making them move to other cities for goodness sake
Who benefits?? Govt and those who invest in the sector... that is all The vast majority of people have zero benefit from the free-market Cuts to the entire public sector ( which is for all of us) Libraries Schools Social Care NHS Youth services Prisons etc etc If we are profiting we should be investing in our people.......... in our country
The people are being moved because the government, quite rightly, refuse to pay rich landlords more than the average UK income in housing benefit. There has been ample evidence that the majority of the electorate support this sensible view. Of course most people cannot afford to live in London, they have to commute.
