It is ironic, but not surprising, that planning laws, supposedly needed to stop England turning into a concrete jungle, have precisely that effect.
A story in the Telegraph tells of a large Victorian suburban house in Nottingham, which is to be pulled down so 16 flats can be built in its place, typical of what is happening all over the country as developers struggle to meet demand for housing within the tight restrictions on land use imposed by the government.
It's a story I've seen repeated many times in our local newspaper too.
For many years new houses have been crammed into the gardens of older houses in all England's towns and villages. Now the pressure has increased and with government demands for ever higher housing densities, the older - more spacious - housing is being demolished to make way for flats.
I know people don't like to see the countryside encroached on, but the price is inferior new housing, the disappearance of traditional housing and gardens, and everyone having to live in less space.
It seems mad to me when farmland is often not even farmed, and in receipt of massive subsidies.
If land were not subject to planning restrictions people would likely have bigger, cheaper homes, with decent sized gardens around them. The quality of life would be generally improved. As it is, we seem to be spiralling into a world of ever smaller, more cramped, and expensive housing.
In ostensibly trying to preserve the countryside, planning laws are in the process of destroying the quality of life in our towns and villages. Not only are more and more houses being packed into the same space, but prices go up, and locals have to move away. And if the countryside is being preserved, it is true in only a limited sense: farms are being amalgamated, the old farming communities are withering away, and government interference in food trade and supply has rendered much farming uneconomic.
Unfortunately planning laws do not let the market - the net result of the choices we all make every day - decide how land might best be used, and substitutes the decisions of a handful of politicians and officials: the result is less flexibility, less innovation, more uniformity, massive development on greenfield sites when it does happen, and more greyness.
Unfortunately the Tories don't get it either, and are playing the same game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
There are a few reasons why developing non-urban areas is a bad idea
1. a decrease in natural habitats and diversity of flora and fauna
2. which in turn leads to a decrease in the number of wild/rare animals in britain
3. increased run-off (due to less flora dna more concrete/tarmac) which leads to drainiage problems, flooding and habitat destruction
4. when suburbs are expanded, the houses built aren't flats, they're spacious houses with large gardens and double garages, because this is the new trend. people want the ideallic 'country house' but within practical distance to the towns for work, and suburbs provide the answer to this
5. pretty soon, (and actually already) britain is experiencing a decreasing population and so the amount of new housing needed won't be as high for too much longer
6. deurbanisation is occuring at such a huge rate in some cities/towns that urban decay is occuring, and the older houses are becoming delapidated
7. there are loads more reasons but i can't be bothered to type them
is it easy to believe someone who doesn't punctuate their posts properly?
actually, reading the rest of your post gave me a few more points:
8. (was I up to 8? i think i was...) you're an arrogant, nitwit.
9. you're not thinking sustainably. What about the next generations that have to live in completely urbanised areas, and there is nowhere to go- no clean air, no untouched land?
10. land is always farmed if it's practical. not all soil and climates are suitable for growing on, so of course not every piece of land that isn't built on will be famed. why does land have to have a purpose?
11. "As it is, we seem to be spiralling into a world of ever smaller, more cramped, and expensive housing." Try living in a shanty town in Sao Paulo, pretentious git. you live in one of the richest countries in the world, and if you think that your quality of life is getting worse, then you're incredibly ignorant to anything outside your no-doubt middle classed windows
12. i've decided that i don't like you.
Well, onlyme, sorry if you don't like me, but a little politeness wouldn't go amiss.
You are mistaken when you imply new development is unnecessary in the UK because population is falling - in fact the population is increasing quite fast, and has been for some time, due to immigration. On top of the population growth is a trend to more and smaller households. Housing pressures are particularly acute in southern England. Which means some new development is inevitable, and effects on things such as drainage just have to be managed (possibly with state intervention, although a large government inspired drainage management scheme on the Thames seems to have caused more problems than it solved).
New development need not mean more travel: by restricting the land available for development, and then designating land for residential or commercial use, planning policy itself causes people to be unable to live near where they work, and to have to travel more (just as government subsidies for public transport enourage people to live further from work and travel more). Less restrictions would in general reduce the travelling people have to do and enable them to make better decisions about where and how they live, so increasing the value of the housing that is built, and improving people's quality of life.
You say I am not thinking sustainably. It seems to me that if we pass farmland on to the next generation which is as productive as it was when we inherited it, that is 'sustainable'. And if we pass on a housing stock which is as good as that we inherited, then that too is 'sustainable'. In short it is about the preservation of capital, which is something the market values without government intervention. It is when people are forced to make sub optimal choices that value is lost, capital eroded, and sustainability suffers.
There is no stock of virgin land in Britain we are using up (and denying to Nature). We use all the land, just in different ways. That said, I think you are right when you suggest new development is often at the expense of wildlife: it worries me too.
Whenever there is a choice between Man and Nature, Man wins. The natural world is seen simply as Man's resource, animals are not respected as ends in themselves, and people are not minded to be vegetarians.
Even if development were restricted to certain areas to protect wildlife, that is not a reason for government controls in the development areas.
Wildlife will do better when farming is less intensive - which means an end to government agricultural subsidies and support (including trade barriers and food dumping, which both impoverish third world farmers).
Fox hunting and game shooting have traditionally meant farmers encouraging wildlife by creating cover for the foxes and game. I don't believe the recent ban on fox hunting is at all helpful.
Also, if people are free to use land as they choose, and farm subsidies are removed, there may well come to be more properties with a little land around them for recreational rather than farming use, where wildlife can then live.
Another possibility is to persuade people to fund nature reserves.
You're so blatently an economist or something. It comes across that your only concern is the amount of money we can squeeze out of the resources we have.
I will (again) write my reply in a form known as a "list". This is because I cannot be bothered to type it out properly.
1. I am an extremely polite person, actually. I just have strong views.
2. "Housing pressures are particularly acute in southern England." That is very true, but the South of England is where our most fertile soils are (particularly Kent). Urbanising these areas is a great idea! Instead, why don't we import more food from foreign countries! Their land can suffer aswell, and hell, it'll be much cheaper because everyone knows that as exploiting increases, costs decrease! (/sarcasm)
3. "things such as drainage just have to be managed " Yes, what a sensible approach. Drainage management is the reason it's a problem. When it rains, the water infiltrates into the soil and is then used up by the flora. What happens when you take away that flora? Not only can it not infiltrate, but it isn't "used up" because there is nothing there but your pretty flagstoned driveway with a Mercedes Benz sitting on it. The presence of vegetation is also hugely important when there are large amounts of precipitation because it causes a lag time between the rain falling and it draining into the river. Otherwise the rivers cannot cope with the amount of water and this is when flooding occurs. But if it's in the name of urban development, then I guess it's worth the risk, right?
4. "You say I am not thinking sustainably. It seems to me that if we pass farmland on to the next generation which is as productive as it was when we inherited it, that is 'sustainable'." But you're arguing that we should develop housing in these areas. You're contradicting your argument.
5. "by restricting the land available for development, and then designating land for residential or commercial use, planning policy itself causes people to be unable to live near where they work" If no planning existed, there would be a lot worse situations than this. Planning policy isn't quite as bad as you're making it out to be. Who wants to live within 2 miles of their work place anyway? Very few people.
Also, I think you'll find that the majority of work placements are withing towns and cities, which is (not coincidentaly) where most housing developments are. The government is not stupid, if there is a huge demand for housing in a particular area, it will (within reason) be supplied.
Just a few comments, Onlyme ...
You're so blatently an economist or something. It comes across that your only concern is the amount of money we can squeeze out of the resources we have.I am not an economist, but I see little point in wasting resources or effort.
Since prices reflect the values people place on things, they are a good guide to what will turn things of little value into things of high value, i.e. to suggest better ways to meet people’s wants.
The market reconciles conflicting desires, letting people pursue their own ends in life by acting as a means for others. For example, if you want to create a wildlife sanctuary, then if you can raise the money - perhaps by working for other people on their projects - then even if no one else shares your interest, you can still create your sanctuary, in harmony with everyone else. Don't knock the market!
I will (again) write my reply in a form known as a "list". This is because I cannot be bothered to type it out properly.
1. I am an extremely polite person, actually. I just have strong views.
2. "Housing pressures are particularly acute in southern England." That is very true, but the South of England is where our most fertile soils are (particularly Kent). Urbanising these areas is a great idea! Instead, why don't we import more food from foreign countries! Their land can suffer aswell, and hell, it'll be much cheaper because everyone knows that as exploiting increases, costs decrease! (/sarcasm)Why not import food from abroad if it benefits us? If it gives us more choice as to how we utilise our land, then it should enable people's wants to be better satisfied.
How do we assess the best ideas? A: Through the signals the market sends - which arrangement do people value more? Note that with this method, the government isn't needed.
In buying food from abroad we benefit the producers: both we and they win. I'm afraid it is not obvious to me how the foreign producers are exploited by this trade, or how their land suffers.
3. "things such as drainage just have to be managed " Yes, what a sensible approach. Drainage management is the reason it's a problem. When it rains, the water infiltrates into the soil and is then used up by the flora. What happens when you take away that flora? Not only can it not infiltrate, but it isn't "used up" because there is nothing there but your pretty flagstoned driveway with a Mercedes Benz sitting on it. The presence of vegetation is also hugely important when there are large amounts of precipitation because it causes a lag time between the rain falling and it draining into the river. Otherwise the rivers cannot cope with the amount of water and this is when flooding occurs. But if it's in the name of urban development, then I guess it's worth the risk, right?Drainage is surely a technical & engineering problem (or opportunity): my impression is that there is less flooding than there used to be - for example, the Fens have been drained and are now cultivated.
I agree it is possible that people sometimes don't pay enough attention to drainage issues, but if they don't, they pay a price, and will have reason to be more careful in future.
4. "You say I am not thinking sustainably. It seems to me that if we pass farmland on to the next generation which is as productive as it was when we inherited it, that is 'sustainable'." But you're arguing that we should develop housing in these areas. You're contradicting your argument.You have a point, although I meant that if we preserve capital in a wider sense, avoiding capital consumption, then things are sustainable.
After all, we have a choice in how to make our living. If it pays us to do something other than farm and buy produce from abroad, then farmland may be farmed less intensively - it will not have as high a productivity - and so in a sense be less productive. But if people generally are better off, the new arrangement is in a sense more 'sustainable'.
And if farmland is not needed so much for food, it can be put to other uses, including residential and recreational. If people value these uses more, the value of the land is increased.
The more I think about it, the more I think 'sustainability' is a red herring. What is sustainable in human terms is whatever the market will support without capital consumption, and in general, because people are not fools, that will be the status quo. If things need to change, the market adapts, if necessary reclaiming land for agricultural use.
To go back to your original point 9, "What about the next generations that have to live in completely urbanised areas, and there is nowhere to go- no clean air, no untouched land?": I would say it is a matter for people making their individual choices now and in the future - people's choices now tie in to the future through their effect on capital values: it is in people's self-interest to make choices which others will value. Many people already choose to live in urban areas. But to ban development is to impose a single view on everyone, denying choice; to fossilise the landscape, denying the possibility of change; and to fail to make full use of our resources.
There is no perfect answer, but I see no reason to suppose governments make better decisions than individuals, and at least if governments do not make the decision, then not everyone is constrained by a one size fits all 'solution'. If individuals make their decisions within the context of the market, then change will be incremental and evolutionary, and good decisions will be reflected in the lasting value people create for themselves.
5. "by restricting the land available for development, and then designating land for residential or commercial use, planning policy itself causes people to be unable to live near where they work" If no planning existed, there would be a lot worse situations than this. Planning policy isn't quite as bad as you're making it out to be. Who wants to live within 2 miles of their work place anyway? Very few people.I am hard put to think of any benefits planning brings: it limits people’s options and adds substantially to development time and costs. I am not inclined to second guess where people want to live.
At a lower level many planning rules are just a waste of time and money: e.g. permissions for putting up a satellite dish, or installing new windows, or pruning a tree.
A while ago my in-laws objected to neighbours building a house in the garden next door. The house was built. Then my in-laws wanted to build an extension of their own, and were in turn upset when neighbours objected to it. The extension went ahead. What was the point of it all? Everyone is quite happy now, and my in-laws like their new neighbours. The planning process just adds to the time and expense, and the planners have their own point of view too (together with the deciding vote), to further complicate matters. There is no right answer to these things, not one that the planners can know better than anyone else.
Also, I think you'll find that the majority of work placements are withing towns and cities, which is (not coincidentaly) where most housing developments are. The government is not stupid, if there is a huge demand for housing in a particular area, it will (within reason) be supplied.The centres of towns and cities are nowadays generally commercial areas with little accommodation. New commercial development is on industrial estates. This was not always the case, and there was a time when housing for workers was built alongside factories and other commercial premises. Obviously, people may not wish to live next to a factory, but now separation is enforced; people typically live on residential estates, and have to travel to most facilities.
There is a huge amount of government engineered commuting: for example, after the war new towns were built to replace housing lost in London. Many people commute from these to work in London. The commuter lines are subsidised, further encouraging the separation of work and workers.
The government's policy for new housing is not to allow incremental development, but to dictate on the grand scale - which means some areas experience acute shortages of housing, while others are covered with a great rash of development filling in all the green spaces. Then every now and again the government announces complete new dormitory towns - like the one scheduled for Micheldever in the middle of the Hampshire countryside, and the massive one the government has in mind near Cambridge for East Anglia (both on what I imagine are very fertile soils). Not only does the government specify where people are to live, but the sort of accommodation they will have. What is built will have value (people will take what there is), but it will not be as good as if people had been able to choose freely. For example, many tower blocks built by councils in the sixties, began to be demolished as little as 15 to 20 years later.
Post a Comment