Illegal house extension demolished

Page 4 of 5  
writes

But there is a lot of quotations from Vauxhall and others on the net relating to the closure and yet not one of them refers to planning/expansion/green belt issues. You would have thought that if it was an issue it would have such a hot potato that it would have been referred to somewhere. If you know that part of Luton at all you would know that there is plenty of land that has been and is being/available to be developed, a hugely important local employer would not have been held back on lack of development land, the council were desperate to keep them going. I worked at the Vauxhall plant on a number of occasions and believe me space wasn't a problem. It was a commercial decision on the part of GM.
--
David

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Where exactly is this green belt land that the main Vauxhall works could use for expansion? It all looks pretty built-up around there to me.
The only green bits near there apart from the Vauxhall Sports Club grounds are the airport and Luton Hoo.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

driven
House van still be built on the vast majority of the land, even national parks.

You don't have an argument. You said that 50% of the UK "cannot" be built on, which is total stupidity. Taking your argument Switzerland would not exist.
You said "around 50% of the UK cannot be built on due to its topography". What facts do you have to support this deep faith.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
a> The town and country planning act was a tool for large landowners.
Large land owners don't need planning regulations, they _own_the_land_. If they don't want houses built on it they _just_don't_build_them_.
a> It is Stalinist.
This from someone advocating forced collectivisation?
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

It isn't.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
a> It is Stalinist.>> This from someone advocating forced collectivisation?a> It isn't.
Please ask your other peronality to post, we were talking to him.
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

You are a very confused person.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's easy to get confused when communicating with someone who is clearly in a different universe to everyone else.
BTW, you still haven't explained why the people you believe own all the land need a planning system to stop houses being built on that land.
--
Mail me as snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are? I thought only the 1947 T&C Planning act was Stalinist.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that
price
built
Sorry - just plain wrong on one particular point (no idea of the rest). 34% of an average UK home price is land value - not the 66% you claim. It used to be 15% in 1992.
At least, according to the article produced by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3089814.stm
So - either the BBC is wrong, or you are. I know who'll I'll be backing... ;)
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

expensive
Owns
34%
used
backing...
After this Gilligan affair you would be foolish to back the BBC. :) Cahill, who I prefer to believe as his book is mentioned in Hansard and often quoted by ministers, gives the figures and the "average" home has approx 2/3 of the value being the land due to the artificial land shortage created. Cahill is the only reliable authority on this subject as government department figures actually differ from each other.
The BBC report said "In 1992 the cost of land accounted for only 15% of the value of a new home, by 2002 this had risen to 34%." This is "new" homes mainly built by large developers, not the average home in the UK. Remember only 20 companies build like 90% of all homes in the UK. No other country has this monopoly of land ownership and building. These BBC figures are what the developers buy the land for, which is mainly green field land and they buy in bulk. Cahill touches on this point in the cosy relationship of large landowners and developers. In which many have their fingers in both pies. Is this 34% a part of what the total build cost is, which is "very" different to the selling price? Pretty vague isn't it?
I notice the BBC still use emotive propaganda terms as "urban sprawl", "concreting over the countryside", etc. We just can't concrete over the countryside as there is just far too much of it. The UK has a land surplus. BTW, about the south east becoming a huge estate, terms used by the BBC, the home counties are under populated.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

is
Cahill,
quoted
the
is
figures
the
Remember
Let me get this right then.... 90% of new homes built in the UK aren't those new homes talked about in the BBC article? So what they meant to say was "In 1992 the cost of land accounted for only 15% of the value of a new home, by 2002 this had risen to 34% - but only for the 10% that aren't built by large companies - for these 90% its actually 66% but we won't talk about that".

of
So you're saying that the house builders are in it to make money? Shock horror! And I thought that it was out of kindness. And you're also saying that the 34% is of the cost - not the selling price - therefore that means that its even lower percentage if you compare the price of the house to the cost of the land (unless you're suggesting selling houses for less than their cost price).

surplus.
the
Tell that to to the Government who are trying to put 40,000 new homes into the South East (Hampshire (6,030), Kent (5,700), Essex (5,240), Hertfordshire (3,280), Buckinghamshire (3,210), West Sussex (2,890), Berkshire (2,620), Bedfordshire (2,430), Oxfordshire (2,430), Surrey (2,360), East Sussex (2,290) and the Isle of Wight 520 homes.)
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It
the
is
Who
rest).
Cahill
homes
The BBC figures need clarifying and set against the existing housing stock. Very vague indeed. This is typical media tabloid speak.

and
both
"very"
I am not saying anything. I am saying the figures are vague, which they are.

I know. It is disgusting. They say 3 houses per hectare not 2. This is appalling when we have a surplus of land in the UK. The green propaganda movements, like Friends of the Earth have made a good job at conditioning the nation and government, supposed to be a peoples government, never countered their propaganda. Cahill says they are a front for large land owning organisations such as the Countryside Alliance, to keep people out of the countryside. He pours scorn on Jonathan Porrit.
40,000 much needed new homes spread over all these counties is not a lot at all.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
BBC,
into
of
at
Now I'm really confused... either its under populated, or the houses are much needed... I can't see how it can be both.
D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

sprawl",
conditioning
out
How is that confusing? The home counties are currently under populated. They also require much need homes too. Is that so difficult?
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

the
It is still vague and must be set against the existing housing stock to get a true reflection.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"IMM" wrote | After this Gilligan affair you would be foolish to back the BBC. :) | Cahill, who I prefer to believe as his book is mentioned in Hansard | and often quoted by ministers,
Oh he must be right then.
Does *he* know where the WMDs are?
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How interesting....not that I got it from there...it's much older than that.
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

planning
snip
Could someone in 'planning' or 'building-control' have made a bit of a f***-up? -- nss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Could have, but they can also get it demolished because it is unsafe once it has been brought to their attention.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.