Wood burners - and open fires

[oddoneout]

Don't get me onto the Localism Act 2011 and later developments.

I'm not sure that I'm quite as negative about the "donors and cronies" as you seem to be, but I'm not far behind. Even worse in some cases, the developers may even put forward proposals by offshore companies - for investment - so that people who have absolutely nothing to do with the UK can make a profit out of developments which may not improve the lives of people living in the UK. Of course it is allowed for UK citizens, who are rich enough, to have shares in those companies.

At least in Switzerland they have the right idea, though they screw money out of people in other ways.

Thousands of tons of fish are rotten in the state of Denmark!

There was an article in the Guardian a couple of days go which I can't now find which was about massive redevelopment in London aimed at foreign investment, and solely investment, not for anyone to live in. Existing residents are removed and supposedly rehoused as part of the schemes, but find themselves excluded from any of the facilities, pushed up against railway lines etc, all the while able to see hundreds of empty apartments built where they used to live
Ah, found it https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ng-development a dispiriting read unfortunately.
We are constantly being told about why it is super essential to concrete over green fields " because there's a housing crisis". That being the case why are there about one million residential units with planning permission but unbuilt? And why so many empty houses?(not unconnected with but not limited to the London investment disease). Developers whinge to government that it would be economic ruin to build more houses, as that would depress the market(aka might slightly impinge on their double digit profits and hence the obscene amount of money they can pay themselves) but they they continue to extort further permissions from councils unable to oppose, and sit on the land. Meanwhile small developers and local builders stand no chance and selfbuilders even less so to build good quality houses of a kind and at a scale that suits local need. The token amounts that are supposed to be paid by the developers as sweeteners to "improve local facilities" might as well not be required or collected for all the good they do. As high school governor for many years, and also having engaged with the GP surgery over the years about their staffing problems, I am only too well aware that a few tens of thousands of pounds as a one off payment to those bodies achieves precisely zilch in addressing lack of school places and doctors.
It's things like this that fuel my donors and cronies negativity, which is not a new state of affairs.

[Dave2002]

Developers are supposed to provide funds under the CiL scheme if their plans for development are approved. There have been numerous reports which suggest that although in some cases the funds are actually provided, and ploughed back into the community, the total costs are far higher and funded by government , government agencies, and local councils.

Example: A housing development is planned, and requires vehicle access to roads in the vicinity. CiL payments are agreed, so maybe the local community gets a substantial payment for a new village hall. In the meantime, the re-arrangement of the roads - requiring new roundabouts, new signage, maybe new traffic lights etc. - since it is not on the development site - all the costs for the changes in infrastructure are picked up by the mythical taxpayer!

The reports I'm thinking of suggest that typically the parts of the overall project to external infrastructure that developers contribute are 50% or less than the total required to put a working infrastructure in place and maintain it. So communities may end up paying for projects that they really didn't want, in order that developers can make a profit. That's one rather cynical way of looking at it. Not all projects are bad, but some are.

[oddoneout]

Developers are supposed to provide funds under the CiL scheme if their plans for development are approved. There have been numerous reports which suggest that although in some cases the funds are actually provided, and ploughed back into the community, the total costs are far higher and funded by government , government agencies, and local councils.

Example: A housing development is planned, and requires vehicle access to roads in the vicinity. CiL payments are agreed, so maybe the local community gets a substantial payment for a new village hall. In the meantime, the re-arrangement of the roads - requiring new roundabouts, new signage, maybe new traffic lights etc. - since it is not on the development site - all the costs for the changes in infrastructure are picked up by the mythical taxpayer!

The reports I'm thinking of suggest that typically the parts of the overall project to external infrastructure that developers contribute are 50% or less than the total required to put a working infrastructure in place and maintain it. So communities may end up paying for projects that they really didn't want, in order that developers can make a profit. That's one rather cynical way of looking at it. Not all projects are bad, but some are.

This is the situation with the estate that's been granted PP on fields at the bottom of my garden. Because the development straddles the existing road, providing access will require not only the usual lighting(so goodbye night skies) along the road and pavements etc, but a roundabout. There is no way the developer is going to be funding that in full, and I don't imagine they will fully fund the redesign of the level crossing over the heritage railway that will be needed either. There is no sewage connection available currently, something I gather they didn't believe was the case initially, and it came as a bit of a surprise apparently when the water company said no can do to the assumption the estate could be joined to the existing system. Those of us living here knew that and many of us remember the days when sewage used to come up into some houses after cloudbursts and pointed it out in comments on the initial application. That was fixed years ago but led to the embargo on any further connections. A proposed alternative was turned down, I think a third attempt has been approved in principle - but to a facility that doesn't yet exist, and in any case was not intended for the demand of several hundred extra houses in addition to the planned village expansion. Much of that will come out of our water bills not the developer pocket I assume. The one-off contribution to schools, GPs and library services was well under £100,000 the last I heard - so hardly worth bothering with. The so-called "affordable" element has already been halved and will come down even further by the time building starts, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up close to single figures. Virtually all the occupants will be commuters and none of the proposed housing addresses the very big demand for units suitable for older residents to downsize to - which would free up family houses elsewhere in town. The location is good in terms of access to services and bus route, so it's a lost opportunity, but one that is repeated across the country. The assumption seems to be not only that every older person wants to live in a retirement block but that all can pay the service charges demanded by such places.

[Serial_Apologist]

There was an article in the Guardian a couple of days go which I can't now find which was about massive redevelopment in London aimed at foreign investment, and solely investment, not for anyone to live in. Existing residents are removed and supposedly rehoused as part of the schemes, but find themselves excluded from any of the facilities, pushed up against railway lines etc, all the while able to see hundreds of empty apartments built where they used to live
Ah, found it https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ng-development a dispiriting read unfortunately.
We are constantly being told about why it is super essential to concrete over green fields " because there's a housing crisis". That being the case why are there about one million residential units with planning permission but unbuilt? And why so many empty houses?(not unconnected with but not limited to the London investment disease). Developers whinge to government that it would be economic ruin to build more houses, as that would depress the market(aka might slightly impinge on their double digit profits and hence the obscene amount of money they can pay themselves) but they they continue to extort further permissions from councils unable to oppose, and sit on the land. Meanwhile small developers and local builders stand no chance and selfbuilders even less so to build good quality houses of a kind and at a scale that suits local need. The token amounts that are supposed to be paid by the developers as sweeteners to "improve local facilities" might as well not be required or collected for all the good they do. As high school governor for many years, and also having engaged with the GP surgery over the years about their staffing problems, I am only too well aware that a few tens of thousands of pounds as a one off payment to those bodies achieves precisely zilch in addressing lack of school places and doctors.
It's things like this that fuel my donors and cronies negativity, which is not a new state of affairs.

As a corollary to this story, a few years ago I returned to the district which was my home up to age 12 - the now-super posh area of West London (which wasn't then) that lies between Earls Court and the Chelsea Embankment that was built by developers in the 1860s who, ironically, went broke in the process. One thinks of a place full of multi-billionaire occupants, but this isn't in fact the case. The rector in St Mary the Boltons church, where my mother sometimes depped as organist for Sunday services, told me nearly all the big white Italianate villas remain empty for most of the year: they are owned either by wealthy arabs or multinational companies who keep them maintained in tip-top condition, but mostly empty apart from for entertaining. The building work taking place everywhere must make the district a horrible place to live in: outside the front third world immigrants were busy polishing the brass bell surrounds and in one case washing the green fragmented glass substituting for a front flower bed; through the front door fanlights one could see expensive chandeliers switched on. Some of the basements are being gouged out for swimming pools and private cinemas.

Things will never change for as long as we have capitalism. Having dealt with greedy landlords in the 1960s ("No dogs, no blacks, no Irish") it was a conjunction of empty office blocks and homelessness that got me involved in radical politics in the early 1970s. Office blocks were being kept empty for as long as possible to raise the capital value of them as property and the rents that would eventually accrue. An aggregation of radical groups, sympathetic enthusiasts and renegade left councillors occupied one such tower in the centre of Bristol in the summer of '73, running what was effectively an informal co-operative roughly along early Russian Soviet lines to publicise this outrage and campaign for public housing, and taking in homeless people, until eventually it was "busted" - up to which time it had been a pretty effectively organised publicity campaign that got support from local trade unions and front-page notices in the national media.

This was informally part of a nationwide campaign of inner city squatting that got negative notices in the press (though there were sympathetic journalists and documentary makers who offered a balanced countervailing picture) but in some instances saw the beginnings of the housing association movement, with all its pros and cons. What is probably needed is a renewed squatting movement - which will probably happen in any case as homelessness rockets in the wake of the pandemic and associated business collapses. But it will need to be better organised than last time around (with notable exceptions in that regard, including my above example), less dependent on leadership by "charismatic individuals" and "alternativity", and more practically-orientated, making use of existing skill sets capitalism doesn't seem in need of any more.

[Anastasius]

Yeah - sure. So go and live in the woods in an old style black house, and if you feel like it get a whole lot of your mates to make replicas and make a village or town of them, and live a life style which might have been appropriate - and uncomfortable - about 4-500 years ago. That's why there are a number of so-called open air museums, so we can retain a knowledge and appreciation of old houses, without actually having to force anyone to live in them.

I'm not suggesting that every old house is knocked down, or should be modified to modern standards, but rather that if a house is to be retained it should be reasonably functional and appropriately comfortable and economic for its occupants.

I suppose your house has electricity. I notice it was built before electricity supplies were commonplace.

or just maybe taking the blinkers off, there are a lot of people for whom the aesthetic value of living in an old building far outweighs the discomfort that you perceive.

[Anastasius]

..... Building Regs have their limitations(the worst of which were demonstrated most recently by Grenfell) -....

I think it's a bit unfair to single out Building Regs since it was companies like Kingspan and Celotex who misled and falsified test records for their products. Allegedly.

[french frank]

or just maybe taking the blinkers off, there are a lot of people for whom the aesthetic value of living in an old building far outweighs the discomfort that you perceive.

And it probably is up to the occupants to decide the level of comfort that they demand I doubt anyone is forced to put up with such horrid discomfort. Either they can be rehoused if they can't afford minimum standards; or if living in a tied house I doubt the property owner is allowed to torture his employees in such a way. Different people, though, have different priorities. Some really will put up with relative 'discomfort' for the pleasure of living in an interesting house. I lived in a Grade II listed cottage and, as I mentioned, never bothered to have central heating installed. It was quite draughty.

[gradus]

We live in a house from at least 3 periods and its a real hotchpotch of building methods from the earliest timber frame to the latest insulated cavity walls but thankfully it isn't encumbered by listing.
I'm afraid I've become increasingly fond of keeping the house warm which for us means 15c on the main c.h. thermostat but thermostatic valves are kept closed in rooms until needed. Both open fire and wood burner are encouraged to express themselves fully at no small cost in kiln dried wood.
For all the inconvenience of an old bitsa house, I still prefer it to the open-plan operating theatre look that seems to be the ideal these days.

[Dave2002]

And it probably is up to the occupants to decide the level of comfort that they demand

... and some have that thrust upon them ....

[french frank]

... and some have that thrust upon them ....

I was trying to think who that might have been - having dismissed those on low incomes and people living in tied cottages. The wives and families of blokes who 'thrust' their own eccentric preferences on them perhaps?

[Old Grumpy]

I was trying to think who that might have been - having dismissed those on low incomes and people living in tied cottages. The wives and families of blokes who 'thrust' their own eccentric preferences on them perhaps?

And also vice versa perhaps?

[french frank]

And also vice versa perhaps?

Yes, but only 'perhaps'

[oddoneout]

We live in a house from at least 3 periods and its a real hotchpotch of building methods from the earliest timber frame to the latest insulated cavity walls but thankfully it isn't encumbered by listing.
I'm afraid I've become increasingly fond of keeping the house warm which for us means 15c on the main c.h. thermostat but thermostatic valves are kept closed in rooms until needed. Both open fire and wood burner are encouraged to express themselves fully at no small cost in kiln dried wood.
For all the inconvenience of an old bitsa house, I still prefer it to the open-plan operating theatre look that seems to be the ideal these days.

Which is proving not that useful for those trying to homeschool and WFH in many cases. Developers like the concept as it enables them to reduce the floor area and thus increase build density without it being immediately obvious. I can see the point of a kitchen-diner/family room( a concept common in the likes of farmhouses in earlier times), but there needs to be space to get away from cooking smells, noise and hustle. A separate space also makes accommodating overnight guests(or indeed family members needing care) that much easier.

[vinteuil]

Which is proving not that useful for those trying to homeschool and WFH in many cases. Developers like the concept as it enables them to reduce the floor area and thus increase build density without it being immediately obvious. I can see the point of a kitchen-diner/family room( a concept common in the likes of farmhouses in earlier times), but there needs to be space to get away from cooking smells, noise and hustle. A separate space also makes accommodating overnight guests(or indeed family members needing care) that much easier.

... I so agree. Many of the victorian terrace houses around here have been 'knocked through' to create larger rooms : I was never tempted to go down that path, for all the reasons you mention - and also - by knocking down a dividing wall you lose two 'walls' available for bookcases or pictures.

.

[eighthobstruction]

... I so agree. Many of the victorian terrace houses around here have been 'knocked through' to create larger rooms : I was never tempted to go down that path, for all the reasons you mention - and also - by knocking down a dividing wall you lose two 'walls' available for bookcases or pictures.

.

....very true....for the variety of reasons you and oddoneout give....great for table tennis but not much else....