That does sound low. 9GBP would have been more like it - but remember he may have had his apprenticeship long extended by National Service.
Car owning, telephone owning, and possibly even movie camera owning at those rates - and the first with a TV! ;-)
In message , Doctor Drivel writes
But in england, I thought the locals usually objected, (NIMBY), but the planners let things through.
If money is to be made then tend to think differently. A application for 12 selfbuilds on the edges of a village. The local traders would like it, the people would like it as it would ensure the shop, post office and pub stays open.
In article , Richard Faulkner writes
No, its whatever the locals vote for that the planners then do the opposite and on the rare occasion when everyone is in agreement the office of the deputy prime minister then overturns that decision.
Well Drivel someone agrees with you:
"A Policy Exchange report has been named Pamphlet of the Year 2005 by Prospect Magazine's Think Tank of the Year Awards. Unaffordable Housing: Fables and Myths by Professor Alan W. Evans and Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich argued that Britain's centralised planning system resulted in the smallest, oldest and costliest homes in the developed world"
Anyone even half sane would have to.
They are 100% correct.
After a thread on how to do this you never put the ends in the URL
tsk, tsk.
The conclusion was good. I look forwards to the next document they produce.
CONCLUSION
What we have tried to do in this report is to set out the reasons for change in the British planning system. In doing so we have outlined the way in which the system operates, the policy of constraint, and the pattern of development which results. This has increasingly been development at a high density, with half the dwellings built in England being flats and apartments. And we have shown that, when they are asked, the vast majority of the public, 97 per cent in fact, state that they would prefer a house. And, when asked, the majority of the population state that they would prefer not to have blocks of flats built in their neighbourhood. So what is now being built is not wanted. It is bought because that is all that is made available, and the cost of land resulting from the policy of constraint means that people cannot afford the houses that they aspire to.
It might be argued, indeed it is argued, that this kind of development is necessary to serve other ends - sustainability, self-sufficiency, environmental biodiversity etc. But we have shown that most of these arguments are based on myths. What basis they have in reality could be far better served by other policies; they have simply been appropriated as a justification for planning.
Finally we have shown that, even in terms of naked selfinterest, only a small proportion of the population has an interest in maintaining the scarcity of housing land, although it has to be allowed that this minority is wealthier and older and therefore relatively powerful. It also predominantly lives outside towns. For the majority who live in towns their interest lies in preserving and improving the urban environment, an environment which is under threat from current policies.
Even those who are older, wealthier, and live in rural areas can perceive that there is a housing problem, if only for their children. It is not unknown for people to be heard complaining about possible development in their region, and, a few minutes later, also complaining about the inability of their children to find a decent house at a price they could afford. That the two views are in conflict is something we have tried to get across in this report. And we have argued that to resolve the conflict it is necessary to ease constraints on development in order to allow future generations to be able to afford to buy something better than their parents' home, in a better environment.
Finally we argued that there is a danger that the constraints on the growth of the major cities, the major office centres, ignores the effect of higher costs on their ability to compete with other cities in other countries. The nightmare scenario for the British economy would be that a 'tipping point' was reached where the financial services industry of the City decamps to cheaper cities elsewhere in Europe.
The next report resulting from this project will be a study of how other countries plan, to find out how they manage to build larger houses than is possible in Britain, but also to learn from mistakes made abroad.What can be learned from these countries, and what should be avoided? How do they plan their cities? It may be claimed that other countries have more land. That is true of some but it is not true of all. It is not true, for example, of Germany, which has an average population density that is about the same as that of the United Kingdom. Nor is it true of Belgium and the Netherlands, which have much higher population densities. These countries do not have the same housing problems as Britain. Indeed, as we have pointed out, their new houses are much larger than new houses in Britain. It would seem that Britain has something to learn, and in the next report we will look at how a range of different countries plan the use of their land.
Having absorbed the lessons of this and the next report, we hope in a third report to put forward proposals for modifying the system to achieve something better for the UK.
Unaffordable Housing Fables and Myths "Unaffordable Housing (June 2005) Britain's Soviet-style planning system means that we live in some of the smallest, oldest and costliest homes in the developed world. But is this the housing we want? Unaffordable Housing, by Alan W. Evans and Oliver Marc Hartwich, is the first of a three-part series of pamphlets investigating Britain's housing shortage. It analyses how Britain's housing has become the laughing stock of Western Europe, and what we can do about it."
Page 26 the Myths, is good it rubbishes them. The Fables are humorous.
The follow up document to the above:
"Bigger Better Faster More (September 2005) This follow-up to Unaffordable Housing shows that in countries where local councils have to "compete for every inhabitant" they successfully plan for better and cheaper homes in sustainable, green communities. Authors Alan W. Evans and Oliver Marc Hartwich visited Germany, Switzerland, Ireland and Australia to investigate how these countries plan for development. Like the UK, all four countries have experienced pressure on their housing markets because of growing populations, smaller households, longer lifespans, immigration and increases in wealth. Some have adjusted to these changing conditions and continue to provide bigger and more affordable homes in green cities. But others have not."
The conclusion (one page):
No free market nonsense in my back yard mate.
The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:
I am relying on what Dribble has posted here but ISTM the authors of this report have an agenda which does not include commonsense. Using 25 year old figures (and I doubt whether ratios will have changed very much over that time) Germany indeed does have a population density (567 head per square mile) close to that of the UK (592) but the population density of England alone is more than 50% higher at 918 and is actually higher than that of Belgium (832) and Holland (902). And even that is skewed. If we took the part of England South and East of a line running due North-South through Bristol and latitude 53 North we would get an area about the same as the combined totals for Belgium and Holland and the chances are the population density might be treble that for the UK as a whole and maybe approaching double that for the 2 countries cited as having *much* higher population densities.
A country NIMBY eh. No time for the likes of you. Read all the documents I and Tony gave links to. Read the myths.
"Roger" wrote overt Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
Roger, your Rogerness must be directed to the three documents. You have to read and understand them. The last bit you will have problems achieving.
"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
..and London higher again..which mean not much at all. The country is the UK Roger. You must concentrate your Rogerness on this point. Then it will be better for you.
"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
"In Ireland and Australia,with planning systems derived from the UK's, restrictions on the supply of land, densification policies and central planning fail to provide the kind of homes people want, and lead to high real house price inflation. Successful planning systems, as found in Germany and Switzerland, leave planning decisions to local planners and politicians while ensuring that they face the full costs and benefits of their decisions. In our final report we will apply these lessons to the UK and produce a set of reforms aimed at giving Britain the housing it deserves."
"Our planning system set out to predict and provide the housing we need, but as the flaws in the socialist model of provision became obvious it evolved to become a system that constrained development in order to protect the countryside. This has significant costs - we now live in some of the oldest, pokiest and most expensive housing in the developed world. A number of arguments are presented to support this situation, but these can be shown to be false."
"Roger" wrote Rogerness in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
Roger, it appears we have to follow the Teutonics....
Findings
Green and Pleasant Cities: Germany's Localised Planning System
Competing for Taxpayers: Why Swiss Planners Build What People Want
Housing the Celtic Tiger: Ireland's Shortsighted Construction Boom
Death of a Dream: Planners versus the Traditional Australian Home
The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:
That was the case here too until fatty two jags started throwing his weight about.
The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:
Dribble, Wales and Scotland are comparatively empty because relatively speaking few want to live there. Within England much the same is true with respect to the north-south divide. Your new pals cited Holland as being much more crowded than the UK but the area roughly within a 100 mile radius of London (an area larger than Holland) has a much higher population density. Half the counties within it have an individual population density higher than that of Holland.
The south of England is crowded precisely because too many people want to live there. Building more houses will make it even more crowded. Concreting over the whole of the UK might be impossible. Concreting over much of that within 70 miles of the centre of London (an area much the same size as Belgium) is already well advanced.
"Roger" wrote overt Rogerness yet again in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
Roger the comparison is country (UK) v others. I'm sure the Black forest has fewer people than Berlin too. So because it's fewer than London too, in your Rogerness Germany is not a valid comparison to the UK because of the Black Forest. Roger it is best just to ask questions on where you are confused. It is better that way. Don't conclude on items bounce around your head.
Roger the planning system has not been touched in ay significant way whatsoever, PPS7 came in last year, which may be a gloss over. The 1947 T&C planning act is still there, almost intact. It is best to ask questions on your confused Rogerness. You should have said, "is that the case, or it still the same?". I would have then put your Rogerness right.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.