Trying to Save the Countryside from Vandalism

[ahinton]

you are assuming a lot.
long term , the reasons for buy to let thriving are that they are a relatively good bet tax wise, and that the shortage of property means that money is flowing into the sector.
improve the supply of housing, and create a sensible tax regime, and costs of property, both to buy and rent, will fall.

I am against wealthy people owning the property stock and renting it out at a premium to the less well off.
The wealthy always squeal about taxes, even whern their incomes are rocketing while everybody elses are falling.

The first of your statements here is true, but it is so only because there has been a market demand for the rental properties concerned. Imposing massive new taxes on rentals under buy-to-let agreements reached prior to the now imposition is likely to have landlords not so much squealing but taking HMRC to court over reneged deals and likely winning, at great ultimate const to the taxpayer. Further more, one other consequence of substantial tax increases in respect of buy-to-let properties is that the buy-to-let market will become far less attractive, with then end result that less rental accommodation will become available and the obvious outcome of short supply of such accommodation is that - yes, you've (hopefully!) guess it - rents will increase due to that greater scarcity.

The only way to improve the availability of housing is to build a lot more of it, but there's no guarantee that people will be able to afford to purchase much of it or indeed to secure the loans that they need in order to do so.

[Lateralthinking1]

Whatever happened to the 60K house? -

http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid=NEWS&articlekey=4280&cat=1-0-0

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Lets use urban and brownfield sites ..but if we have to build on fields(which are often next to useless monocultures environmentally speaking)then so be it.

The more people there are, there more we need those fields on which to grow the food they eat. But population control is the nettle no-one want to grasp.

[Lateralthinking1]

This is the last week of the consultation on planning.

With typical charm, Francis Maude has described the opposition to the proposals as "bollocks, frankly", a good enough reason for anyone decent to take part and oppose them. Ray Mears, a guy who spent his youth in the "unremarkable" woods just five minutes from my house and learnt more than a thing or two there, has joined the National Trust and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England to condemn the proposals and to emphasise the importance of such spaces to mental health. Just as a reminder:

- The Government wants to burn the books of planning regulations - 1500 pages - and replace them with a 50 page pamphlet.

- The presumption will be in favour of development - not only housing but shopping malls, mining developments, presumably including shale gas, communication masts, and much more.

- World Heritage Sites, National Parks and AONBs will only be protected "as far as is practicable". Greenfield sites and local patches of urban and suburban woodland, if viewed as unremarkable in terms of protected species, are unlikely in many places to survive.

- According to the Communities Department, which ironically is leading on this policy, 3 million homes could potentially be built on brownfield sites with no such change in the regulations. However, they are often less favoured by developers.

If you don't like the proposals, please use half an hour to respond: http://www.communities.gov.uk/public...rkconsultation

[MrGongGong]

I think that , sadly, given that we have a government that sees everything in terms of "assets" that need to have their returns "maximised" then there's not much hope for preserving many things (including Preston Bus station and the Old Birmingham Library)
the alternative is to see place as integral to national identity....... the only reason that there are still farmers in the Cantal region of France (and there are many French examples ) is that people think that the preservation of that way of farming (and the rather wonderful cheese tradition !) is worth paying for. Support for these things has been available from the EU but (sadly again !) we in the UK seem to regard the EU as a conspiracy to steal our money rather than a means of preserving things like our food cultures.
Once we stop seeing the land as simply an asset to make money then we might get somewhere
not much chance of that though !

of course most of our countryside has been made like that by the actions of man
there is an irony (is it really "ironic"?) that we became dominant in the world by chopping down our forests, building ships from the wood and using the energy to fuel an industrial revolution, yet we are (rightly) concerned with others who want to chop down their forests to raise their standards of living !

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, very true. Catherine O'Flynn mentioned Birmingham main library on The Verb this week. She said with some irony that it is loved so much it tends to be knocked down and rebuilt every 40 years!

I look at football grounds. Arsenal ceased being Arsenal for me when Highbury was effectively demolished. I lost interest. I felt that the soul had been ripped out of the club. Now I see that my second team, York City, may be moving to a new ground in a new out-of-city shopping centre. As Marks and John Lewis consider a possible future there alongside, many feel that the retail heart of the city will also be lost. It will become full of tourist tack. Of course, we have all seen for a long time how cosy, original pubs have their innards removed or else they are killed off.

In all of this, there can be a nostalgic pull towards things that are no longer there. It seems to me that it is best to focus sometimes on types rather than specifics - as in "I will find a library, a pub, a team with a football ground, even a bus station of that type somewhere else". In the end, though, there is the thought that none of it is the same so you drop out of it all, the old and the new, and save your money. That's what I do more now.

Buildings are one thing. The countryside is another. I have always been of the view that I could live with the demolition of Hampton Court and Blenheim Palace if this meant protecting all of the countryside we have. Sure, they are nice houses. Heritage and so on. They could also be rebuilt to some extent. I note without malice but with some irritation how cavalier the approach tends to be towards demolishing the stuff of ordinary culture while it is decreed that the buildings of Lords must remain intact.

With the green environment, there is usually no turning back. This is important on so many levels - to allow for space, to enable breathing, to enable relaxation and physical health, to allow for natural beauty, even to help the planet to breathe. More than ever, human beings need such areas too as a way of enjoying something that lacks ego.

[Serial_Apologist]

I note without malice but with some irritation how cavalier the approach tends to be towards demolishing the stuff of ordinary culture while it is decreed that the buildings of Lords must remain intact.

Possibly our appreciation of these buildings lies in the craftspersonship invested in the contents of such places, as much as if not more than the grandeur, and the durability of same.

With the green environment, there is usually no turning back. This is important on so many levels - to allow for space, to enable breathing, to enable relaxation and physical health, to allow for natural beauty, even to help the planet to breathe. More than ever, human beings need such areas too as a way of enjoying something that lacks ego.

Much of said craftspersonship was devoted unregardful of the conditions pertaining at the time when peasants and artisans served God and the aristocracy and nobility - otherwise it would not exhibit such beauty.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes s_a - good points.

[Lateralthinking1]

Prince William is to launch a campaign to protect fields and parkland from developers on behalf of a charity which has fiercely criticised the Government’s controversial planning reforms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8829930/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Prince-William-calls-for-parkland-to-be-protected-from-developers.html

Hooray. This could be the time to return to an absolute monarchy!

[teamsaint]

seriously , though, what does he know about it? never really been short of a place to lay his pampered head, only real problem is which castle to stay at.

Prat.

Time to get rid of inherited privilege.

would really really love to see these people spending half their income on a dump rented out by a landlord with less scruples than an investment bank.

[MrGongGong]

Looks like this bit of greenbelt is going to revert to being green !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15342282

[Lateralthinking1]

If we get travellers to occupy every bit of the green belt in the UK, they will all be moved on to protect the green belt. The green belt will therefore all be saved.

[Lateralthinking1]

Much rejoicing about the changes made by campaigners to the planning reforms. Personally, I still don't like what is being introduced. Not green enough for me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/9169824/Six-major-changes-forced-by-Telegraphs-Hands-Off-Our-Land-campaign.html