fazer71

What you say makes no sense. How does it affect land prices? It's an added cost as with all added costs it increases price and sale time. It's exactly this type of policy which forces prices up ! My arguments are clear every hurdle and every delay makes for fewer more expensive homes. That's basic maths. As is fewer homes means more expensive homes. "affordable" is a nonsense affordable for who and subsidised why ? My argument is simple if the site can accommodate X number of homes within the planning rules then X is what should be build on day 1 1st planning granted. What this thread proves is X is eventually built after years of nonsense and any "affordable" home ends up costing what every other "non affordable" home costs by the time the development is finished. It is absolute insanity. How much clearer can I make my argument /././? LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Frazer you aren't putting forward any arguments. > Affordable housing requirements neither increases > nor decreases the amount of homes built. When > implemented without exception, the only impact > section 106 has besides the creation of affordable > housing is reducing land prices- period. > > Explain why you believe that isn't the case using > an actual argument versus a declarative statement > please? > > You'll note that land price varies significantly > to reflect what can be done /must be done with it > so this is an established fact not a theory. > > > fazer71 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > LondonMix Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Show some analysis that affordable housing > > > restricts development. > > > > > > Everything else you are saying is just noise. > > > The > > > planning system needs to remove the loophole > to > > > avoid this circus but that is not the same > > thing > > > as affordable housing per se restricting > > > development. > > > > Really do you honestly believe the "affordable" > > housing requirement equals more homes ? > > > > Laughable ~!

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Show some analysis that affordable housing > restricts development. > > Everything else you are saying is just noise. The > planning system needs to remove the loophole to > avoid this circus but that is not the same thing > as affordable housing per se restricting > development. Really do you honestly believe the "affordable" housing requirement equals more homes ? Laughable ~!

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fazer, which other laws, policy and "political > claptrap" do you think our council or politicians > should ignore for the sake of expediency and > commercial profit? Every single one that restricts more homes being built and complicated the existing planning! I am not saying that profits should be excessive I'd guess if these bonkers restrictions were removed and more homes were built within a stable system then profits might even be lower as more builders built more homes. These restrictions simply add massively to the cost and the length of time it takes to build new homes. BUT If there is no Commercial PROFIT you get NO homes ! What is it with this insane thought process that profit is a bad thing ... without profit there would be no work no jobs and no new anything !!!!! The logic of many people is totally Bonkers !

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are simply making assertions backed by no > facts or analysis. Mrepeating an ubstantiated view > over and over again doesn't make your point any > more convincing convincing bit = the final result here and elsewhere over and over again anyone who looks at the final result can see nothing unsubstantiated, it has played out exactly as I said it would conclusion a lot of wasted time, emotional upset, nonsense and meaningless political claptrap would have been avoided sad bit this will play out again and again and create emotional upset, nonsense and meaningless political claptrap and result in fewer homes and a painfully slow process every time "good bit" planners architects and associated specialists will be kept busy being "busy" shuffling paperwork creating confusion insanity

The "affordable" "Loophole" is nothing of the sort! There are incredibly parts of our dysfunctional planning system which do actually work .. eventually after many hurdles and much much much wasted time. Council planners and councillors know applying idiotic nonsense they will have fewer homes. Result is they pick and chose when they do and don't thankfully they have some discretion. THE END!

I rest my case unnecessary complexity. Confusion is the result not more homes. Who cares what Americans do with their disposable housing ... They build new developments which are treated like new cars the owners move every ten years. The UK market is totally different. Let people build their own homes rather than this Barratt home system run for profit of large home builders and corporations. In London implement straightforward rules which result in more homes rather than more confusion and fewer homes.

LondonMix and Penguin68 you both show why ?affordable? housing is a nonsense why at best it?s an extra layer of unnecessary unenforceable design at worst (this is my view) it?s political claptrap designed to fool the masses whilst making things worst! Why is it harmful 1. As you both note it creates a false confused market and room for manipulation. 2. It divides the housing market into decent homes and second rate homes small homes with restrictions further unhelpful restrictions causing lower economic mobility stunting advancement, it?s another form of warehousing people rather than giving people freedom of movement. 3. The scandal is that it is restricting the number of new homes and that?s not reported. 4. It is harmful fantasy. The solution would be to open the market setting minimum heights for new developments say 4 or 5 floors, fix the sizes of the new homes ie 10 % 30 sqm 30% 45sqm 40% 75 sqm etc. The current system restricts developments to a set number of bedrooms in Europe they don?t fuss about bedrooms many developments are finished with a bathroom and kitchen and the remainder of the home is open for the new owners to split up or not as they desire. Reality is as I have said is this ?affordable? requirement is restricting the numbers of new homes anything which does that should be scrapped! If everyone bidding knew they could build more they would! This stupidity is fundamental basic SIMPLE maths Affordable housing will only happen when there is sufficient supply! Unnecessary complexity will always result in fewer homes. Unnecessary complexity helps planner?s architects and their specialists add to the price and increase the time it takes to build more homes. Unnecessary complexity is good for politicians as it gives them more fantasy to spread. Unnecessary complexity is a curse on progress. The planning system is 90% unnecessary complexity. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't know what you are talking about Frazer. > If the planning system strictly enforced section > 106 requirements, the impact would be on land > values. If everyone bidding knew for a certain > fact they would be required to build affordable > housing it would be baked into the bidding > numbers. It's entirely possible to build > affordable housing profitably-- high house prices > in London are due to high land values not high > building costs. > > Its the fact that developers can often circumvent > the rules that's the problem. They either overbid > the land on the assumption they'll be able to > convince the council its not economic to build > affordable housing or they don't overbid but > create a false financial analysis (see Elephant > Park) that suggests they cannot build affordable > housing. > > The Elephant Park scenario is really despicable. > There is a reason why they (and Southwark) fought > tooth and nail to prevent that information being > released and its because its a true scandal. > > > > fazer71 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This development is a prime example if you > still > > don't understand > > > > > > Would the developer build the extra flats if > they > > were "affordable" ? > > > > > > Nope Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Affordable housing = less housing > > No, as 'affordable' housing tends to have a > smaller footprint and be less expensively built > then, for any given investment and land size it > would be possible to put up more 'affordable' > housing units. Your syllogism only works if you > assume that developers intend to build affordable > housing units but then price them as > un-affordable. Or perhaps you are confusing > 'affordable' with uneconomic or 'at a loss'. Which > it isn't/ needn't be. There are, of course, local > market rates; what is deemed 'affordable' in > London may not be in Birkenhead. > > There are (sadly) marketing issues where what is > seen as 'social' housing appears in the same > development as premium/ luxury build, but that > says more about the people who might buy the > premium housing than it does the economics of > building it.

This development is a prime example if you still don't understand Would the developer build the extra flats if they were "affordable" ? Nope

Let's work it out. Affordable housing = less housing So zero affordable housing = more housing It's a no brainer for all who want more housing

Let's be clear affordable housing issues results in fewer homes. It's political BS ..

The affordable housing nonsense Just build and stop this liars affordable fantasy bull s?it .

Let's be clear once the building work is over it's over. Unlike aircraft noise which will never ever stop!

I feel sorry for them that they are so "worried" They don't need a party wall surveyor they need a dispute resolution expert and a good book on reality .. If they can't cope with a bit of building work next-door for a couple of months. Maybe move to a desert island? As living in one of the worlds most densely populated mega cities isn't for everyone.

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fazer71 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Nasty neighbours who don't like their > neighbours > > improving their homes are truly sad small > brained > > selfish ignorant people. > > Bit harsh! Harsh No reality What business is it of a neighbour if what you do to your home is within the allowances of the planning system Double standards reign where neighbours get involved The planning system is an ass and neighbours are too busy where other peoples homes are concerned

Best advice I was given was to embrace the change and make the best of it from an architect friend. His advice on the wall height and the rate of money on party wall surveyors was invaluable. It took a couple of months which isn't a lifetime. No one likes change but I want the right to build my extension so it's only fair to allow others their rights too. Nasty neighbours who don't like their neighbours improving their homes are truly sad small brained selfish ignorant people. Embrace the change and make it work for you. After all the dust has settled you'll see it will either make an improvement or zero difference.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And not having radios on full blast all day .... They have to have full volume because of the aircraft noise :)

Interesting my 2p?s worth from personal experience of a side extension with my neighbour. This Party Wall Business is a complete joke! Spending ?3,000 - ?10,000 on a party wall surveyor is a hysterical waste of money usually paid to some incompetent moron. (anyone can take photos and look for cracks) The party wall regulations / laws are the most ridiculously badly drafted bits of legislation ever produced. Getting your neighbour to spend thousands on a ?professional? party wall surveyor is really a complete waste of money for them and for you. You?d be better off simply asking for ? the money yourself. and THEN Take a load of photos of your home on the shared party walls and get your neighbour to sign and date them. To be clear using or NOT using a party wall surveyor YOU will have exactly the same rights to repairs.. if your neighbours work creates any damage internally or externally to your property. ie Identical, if your neighbour drilled through the wall etc etc Side Extensions 2.4 metres is very very low It?s so low that it?s not possible to fit kitchen wall units on that wall which is a bizarre design restriction for the planners to created we went to 3 metres. It is so stupid and bizarre I wonder why they set it at such a height? Madness! If you do want to build the mirror at a later date it would be far better if the wall is 2.6 metres or even better 3 metres to allow for full unobstructed internal height. Even if you don?t want to mirror your neighbour as someone else has mentioned I would absolutely go for the shared boundary wall as it would add value if and when you do sell your home and any new owner wants to build out. The difference is only 150mm and it then becomes yours, legally your neighbour can ask you to pay ? the cost of building the shared wall you can work a deal as I did zero cost  . As for the noise and dust that?s always an issue I agreed with my neighbour to get unrestricted access on the basis they cleaned all windows window sills etc every week whilst the works were carried out, their window cleaner did a great job. Next year I?m going to do my side I also got a signed party wall agreement from my neighbour otherwise they could have involved me in the cost of a party wall ?leech? surveyor .

The extra floor / story is recessed so penalty not all that visible from ground level. It's a problem for pigeons and anyone in a helicopter . Could be a deal breaker if royalty fly over ED with any regularity ;)

Yep The planners want to stay busy so they refuse anything they can to stay in a job. Planning is part job creation part confusion they are very skilled in being busy. Department managers want bigger departments dealing with more complex issues. It's a mess because it's about job creation, not about creating homes. It's another reason we have such huge a housing problem.

They won't they'll park on the main road in the bus lane and wheel everything in as all the other shops do. Red herring included .

If this was a housing association JOB It would be 10 floors high regardless of the policy The UK planning system is a total shambles This is 100% underdevelopment ! Edit If you can't build 5 floors on a high street WTF can you build 5 floors ????????

I think we should build higher all over London Five floors is the most efficient height to build the young and fit can easily manage five flights of stairs Major European cities all have five floor buildings as standard I say this application is too low they must ask for another fifth floor !!!! This is underdevelopment !

Thanks saskia.ow Signed info for others. 691 of 800 signatures Dear Secretary of State, Big changes will take place to the flight paths at many airports, including Heathrow, over the next few years. They are being brought about by the new technology which allows aircraft to be guided much more precisely. Used well, this technology will enable aircraft noise to be shared more equally than it is today. We urge you to permit the introduction of fair flight paths. Why is this important? At present, over 700,000 people live under the Heathrow flight paths; that is, 28% of all people impacted by aircraft noise across Europe. For many people it can mean more than 40 planes an hour passing overhead at the busiest times. People are crying out for respite. Fair flight paths would mean most communities getting respite for 50% - 70% of the time without noise becoming a serious problem in new areas. It would benefit residents with no disbenefit to the airport.

And with capital letters kibris wins aircraft noise moron of the month With a brain that brought kibris to the point of making that idiotic comment post are we surprised in the LOVE of aircraft noise? NOPE kibris would I be correct in thinking you also like hitting yourself over the head with a LARGE hammer? A. YEP !

Many in the wrong zone Imho Estuary Airport the real replacement, only problem no one in power has the foresight, will & wherewithal.