06-21-2021, 10:53 AM
(06-20-2021, 03:34 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: You like the proposed planning policy do you? You like the centralised state planning system endemic of a big state taken straight out of Stalinist Russia? You like the fact that it bypasses democratic accountability by empowering the Civil Service and concentrating power into the Housing Secretary, the current holder of said position is notably corrupt and seemingly having zero accountability? You like the fact that it doesn't touch on the issue of land banking nor actually bother to incentivise developers to build houses? You like how it doesn't address the problem of individuals or small companies and local trusts not being able to actually purchase land and build on it where there is demand? Just because it loosens planning regulations doesn't make it a good policy, that's the only good thing about it and it's buried in a pile of shite. It's a subtle nod to liberal development wrapped in a nice little authoritarian, big-state package designed to empower the state and the oligopoly that is large housing developers. We're not going to get new houses with this policy, all that will happen is it will be easier for the big developers to land-bank and they will continue to donate to the Tories who will continue to help them land-bank.
On that specific point, no I don't particularly 'like' the top down approach proposed - however the pragmatist in me belives local authorities simply can't be trusted to deliver adequate allocations for housing. Locally South Staffs failed for years to deliver a Local Plan and will now, deservedly, reap the whirlwind for that.
As a further example when I was working at North Warwickshire bringing forward a 500% over supply of industrial land at Hams Hall and Birch Coppice there was barely a murmur from the local authority. I ran a paralell project aimed at conversion of redundant farm buildings into commercial and residential use - in EVERY single instance the plans were blocked by a coalition of local residents and councillors.
Today, residents in Pedmore are convinced that a field south of Bromwich Lane is about to be developed for housing because the Council are removing some dead and dying trees. That's despite the site being an unallocated green belt field (and also opposite some houses built in the 1990s).
The problem with C&A, my district and many many others like them is that democratic control of development ultimately results in zero development. I wonder what your solution is to that? I can't honestly think of one.