|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 8, 2024 12:54:19 GMT
Huge amounts of immigration since the 1990's have necessitated house building. BUT, building on farmland, false economy. Building on previously industrial land? Doesn't create job opportunities. We need to avoid building slums. We need to build industry. The best way to achieve mass employment is via manufacturing. Remove the unreasonable impediments to house building and that could be a quick shot in the arm for UK industry — the building and the infrastructure, civil engineering, building products, etc, could all eventually use a UK workforce and production facilities… No to mention lowering prices as supply meets demand, putting more money in peoples pockets. Taking money from the landed and sharing it out a bit. I still say the real blockers of planning are the landed who don't want lands prices to fall. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 8, 2024 12:56:08 GMT
There would be no shortage of land if people would simply eat less meat. 40% of our most productive farmland grows wheat for livestock. Millions of acres. Frankly there's no shortage now. We would need to build on less than 1% of greenbelt to provide a million homes. Not against eating less meat. We eat a lot of fish these days along with some veg only meals, which are delicious. Eat meat once or twice a week now. Add to this my idea (You listening Sir Kier?) that our vegetables should move into blocks of flats and let the humans enjoy the open fields.  The one thing that worried me about Reeves' speech this morning was when she referred to building in areas with insufficient services (schools, hospitals, etc.), she suggested that a refusal of planning would be reversed centrally. She said nothing about what might be done to expand those services to cope.
I wonder if something along the lines of utilising the massive increase in land value on permission to provide those facilities might be possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 8, 2024 13:01:01 GMT
Frankly there's no shortage now. We would need to build on less than 1% of greenbelt to provide a million homes. Not against eating less meat. We eat a lot of fish these days along with some veg only meals, which are delicious. Eat meat once or twice a week now. Add to this my idea (You listening Sir Kier?) that our vegetables should move into blocks of flats and let the humans enjoy the open fields. The one thing that worried me about Reeves' speech this morning was when she referred to building in areas with insufficient services (schools, hospitals, etc.), she suggested that a refusal of planning would be reversed centrally. She said nothing about what might be done to expand those services to cope.
As someone living in an area of great expansion. I would say the council want it both ways. They collect the council tax from all these new homes, but want the builders to provide the schools, roads, surgeries etc. Used to be they asked the builders to contribute, now its all of it. I like this! Its similar to an idea I have where agricultural land is sold to the council at 4 times its value and then released as building land at that price. To bring the cost of new houses down. I think your idea is easier to set up. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 8, 2024 13:09:12 GMT
I used to eat it sometimes in England, but only a few products of theirs have enough protein. Some of them have something like 9% protein which isn't enough. They don't sell the Quorn products with 15%+ protein here in America from my looking around in Publix, Kroger and Aldi (and online). I've noticed much of the beef also has much less protein here and is much higher in fat too, unfortunately, same with the chicken.. "On sale" you can get 1lb of ground beef with 20% fat for about $5, in England you can get 5% fat beef for $4.48. No comparison........ Quorn say Winn Dixie and Whole Foods Market chains sell it www.quorn.us/products/quorn-meatless-grounds |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 8, 2024 13:12:07 GMT
The one thing that worried me about Reeves' speech this morning was when she referred to building in areas with insufficient services (schools, hospitals, etc.), she suggested that a refusal of planning would be reversed centrally. She said nothing about what might be done to expand those services to cope.
As someone living in an area of great expansion. I would say the council want it both ways. They collect the council tax from all these new homes, but want the builders to provide the schools, roads, surgeries etc. Used to be they asked the builders to contribute, now its all of it. I like this! Its similar to an idea I have where agricultural land is sold to the council at 4 times its value and then released as building land at that price. To bring the cost of new houses down. I think your idea is easier to set up. Do you know if a council's block grant from central government is based on. I believe it's the largest part of a council's income and if it doesn't increase with additional homes, I would have thought the extra council tax would be spent mainly on day to day services for the new homes rather than development.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 8, 2024 13:43:51 GMT
As someone living in an area of great expansion. I would say the council want it both ways. They collect the council tax from all these new homes, but want the builders to provide the schools, roads, surgeries etc. Used to be they asked the builders to contribute, now its all of it. I like this! Its similar to an idea I have where agricultural land is sold to the council at 4 times its value and then released as building land at that price. To bring the cost of new houses down. I think your idea is easier to set up. Do you know if a council's block grant from central government is based on. I believe it's the largest part of a council's income and if it doesn't increase with additional homes, I would have thought the extra council tax would be spent mainly on day to day services for the new homes rather than development.
The Barnet formula bases funds on the number of residents in an area. So council tax must grow as population grows. Here's South Cambs break down. The government grant is only 8.4m plus 26.2m housing benefit out of 97.2 million.  |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 8, 2024 16:26:24 GMT
Do you know if a council's block grant from central government is based on. I believe it's the largest part of a council's income and if it doesn't increase with additional homes, I would have thought the extra council tax would be spent mainly on day to day services for the new homes rather than development.
The Barnet formula bases funds on the number of residents in an area. So council tax must grow as population grows. Here's South Cambs break down. The government grant is only 8.4m plus 26.2m housing benefit out of 97.2 million. I hadn't realised how the mix between government block funding and council tax varies across the country.
For Cambridgeshire, council tax accounts for 72% of core spending (up from 67% over 10 years). For Birmingham, only 35% comes from council tax (up from 30% over ten years).
I haven't been able to work out how central funding is calculated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 8, 2024 16:37:12 GMT
Thanks equivocal.
Of course with this being a new government there is nothing to stop them changing this. I believe they have already stated the Barnet formula is out of date.
So lets hope they continue to read my posts and eventually make me emperor Zany.
(You can be my queen consort if you like)
|
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 8, 2024 16:52:56 GMT
Thanks equivocal. Of course with this being a new government there is nothing to stop them changing this. I believe they have already stated the Barnet formula is out of date. So lets hope they continue to read my posts and eventually make me emperor Zany. (You can be my queen consort if you like) I know we're in times of gender fluidity, but I'm quite happy being male - sorry.
On 'reading my posts' one member of Fox's forum was convinced the number of visitors to the site increased whenever he posted. He thought it was down to the quality and thought provoking nature of his posts - he really meant it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 8, 2024 17:39:31 GMT
Do you know if a council's block grant from central government is based on. I believe it's the largest part of a council's income and if it doesn't increase with additional homes, I would have thought the extra council tax would be spent mainly on day to day services for the new homes rather than development.
The Barnet formula bases funds on the number of residents in an area. So council tax must grow as population grows. Here's South Cambs break down. The government grant is only 8.4m plus 26.2m housing benefit out of 97.2 million. Not sure I understand these figures. Are they saying they collect £100m in business rates keep £10m give government £90m and get back £10m in grants. I know Cambridgeshire is affluent and hence not surprised it subsidises other areas of country but if I have got figures right the quantum is surprising. Not sure I understood either your Debrnhams example Zany. I presume the issue is not number of sewage connections but volume of sewage but even then surely cheaper to expand than build new in fields? By the way I know talk is cheap but Rachel Reeves comes over as an impressive lady. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 8, 2024 18:13:48 GMT
Thanks equivocal. Of course with this being a new government there is nothing to stop them changing this. I believe they have already stated the Barnet formula is out of date. So lets hope they continue to read my posts and eventually make me emperor Zany. (You can be my queen consort if you like) I know we're in times of gender fluidity, but I'm quite happy being male - sorry.
On 'reading my posts' one member of Fox's forum was convinced the number of visitors to the site increased whenever he posted. He thought it was down to the quality and thought provoking nature of his posts - he really meant it.
Shame about the queen thing I'd already ordered you a dress from Temu. Still never mind. Clearly the other member was delusional, clearly hasn't seen my posts.  But you must admit it is nice when you see one of your ideas taken up by government. And no I don't think they follow me on here. Its all quiet meetings at the country club. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 8, 2024 18:23:06 GMT
The Barnet formula bases funds on the number of residents in an area. So council tax must grow as population grows. Here's South Cambs break down. The government grant is only 8.4m plus 26.2m housing benefit out of 97.2 million. Not sure I understand these figures. Are they saying they collect £100m in business rates keep £10m give government £90m and get back £10m in grants. I know Cambridgeshire is affluent and hence not surprised it subsidises other areas of country but if I have got figures right the quantum is surprising. Not sure I understood either your Debrnhams example Zany. I presume the issue is not number of sewage connections but volume of sewage but even then surely cheaper to expand than build new in fields? By the way I know talk is cheap but Rachel Reeves comes over as an impressive lady. I guess Cambridge is a net contributor to government funds, not the surprising when you consider all the science parks and research facilities based here. Debenhams. Yes I meant volume of sewage (by connections I meant available underground systems that were within reach and not at full capacity. Cheaper than building new? Digging a trench/tunnel from the middle of a city to a sewage works in the country. Care to put a price on that. By example the short replacement sewer pipe that runs down Victoria Road in Cambridge cost £7.9million |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 8, 2024 18:23:20 GMT
I know we're in times of gender fluidity, but I'm quite happy being male - sorry.
On 'reading my posts' one member of Fox's forum was convinced the number of visitors to the site increased whenever he posted. He thought it was down to the quality and thought provoking nature of his posts - he really meant it.
Shame about the queen thing I'd already ordered you a dress from Temu. Still never mind. Clearly the other member was delusional, clearly hasn't seen my posts. But you must admit it is nice when you see one of your ideas taken up by government. And no I don't think they follow me on here. Its all quiet meetings at the country club. I'll see if I might have a spare guest ticket for next year's Davos conference. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 8, 2024 18:41:04 GMT
Shame about the queen thing I'd already ordered you a dress from Temu. Still never mind. Clearly the other member was delusional, clearly hasn't seen my posts. But you must admit it is nice when you see one of your ideas taken up by government. And no I don't think they follow me on here. Its all quiet meetings at the country club. I'll see if I might have a spare guest ticket for next year's Davos conference. Don't bother the Daleks are beaten. time he retired.  |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 8, 2024 19:14:08 GMT
Not sure I understand these figures. Are they saying they collect £100m in business rates keep £10m give government £90m and get back £10m in grants. I know Cambridgeshire is affluent and hence not surprised it subsidises other areas of country but if I have got figures right the quantum is surprising. Not sure I understood either your Debrnhams example Zany. I presume the issue is not number of sewage connections but volume of sewage but even then surely cheaper to expand than build new in fields? By the way I know talk is cheap but Rachel Reeves comes over as an impressive lady. I guess Cambridge is a net contributor to government funds, not the surprising when you consider all the science parks and research facilities based here. Debenhams. Yes I meant volume of sewage (by connections I meant available underground systems that were within reach and not at full capacity. Cheaper than building new? Digging a trench/tunnel from the middle of a city to a sewage works in the country. Care to put a price on that. By example the short replacement sewer pipe that runs down Victoria Road in Cambridge cost £7.9million I tried to check the council figures on South Cambs council website but gave up when I got completely different figures. As far as I can make out like many public sector organisations they are financially essentially now a large pension fund with a small council attached rather than the other way around. Ho hum. I have to confess my ability to hold an informed conversation about relative costs of sewage infrastructure is somewhat limited! Wasn’t the Cambridge Debenhams in the Grafton Centre close to quite a few well populated colleges and Mill Road. Seems surprising that a relative handful of flats in the old Debenhams would tip capacity over the edge. |
|
