Jump to content

Another canal side property for sale


emm

Featured Posts

17 minutes ago, jeanb said:

I think that's a disaster. Just saying.

Is that spot where you moor by the table and seats to walk up to the Dog and Hedgehog at Dadlington. You can also walk up to the pub at Stoke Golding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Is that spot where you moor by the table and seats to walk up to the Dog and Hedgehog at Dadlington. You can also walk up to the pub at Stoke Golding

Yes, that's the place.  It's going to fill the field overlooking the moorings completely,  bridging the gap between the two villages effectively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Brown envelopes stuffed with cash is not unknown at other locations ...

problem is the council has to meet its target as given by the government to get its money from the government. More houses also equals mor poll tax. 

But if it is arable land we should be using it to give us a chance whilst Ukraine farms are not producing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tonka said:

problem is the council has to meet its target as given by the government to get its money from the government. More houses also equals mor poll tax. 

But if it is arable land we should be using it to give us a chance whilst Ukraine farms are not producing

This is part of it.

 

In 2012 a new planning planning framework came in which favours all 'sustainable' new development.  Part of that means that all Councils need to provide a sustainable housing supply.  Where a council hasn't been able to demonstrate a sufficient supply of new homes to meet demand, the developer has them over a barrel and they know it.  They also know that the councils can ill-afford to stump up costs following an appeal.  So developers are able to push through new housing like this, even on green belt sites.  Where there's massive local opposition, the local councillors will block the development to protect their own seats but this will only delay things since the developer will then appeal and win and get costs off the council.  So all those local protesters will have achieved is less council money for local services.  Sad, but true.

 

It's what the country voted for, and continues to vote for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

This is part of it.

 

In 2012 a new planning planning framework came in which favours all 'sustainable' new development.  Part of that means that all Councils need to provide a sustainable housing supply.  Where a council hasn't been able to demonstrate a sufficient supply of new homes to meet demand, the developer has them over a barrel and they know it.  They also know that the councils can ill-afford to stump up costs following an appeal.  So developers are able to push through new housing like this, even on green belt sites.  Where there's massive local opposition, the local councillors will block the development to protect their own seats but this will only delay things since the developer will then appeal and win and get costs off the council.  So all those local protesters will have achieved is less council money for local services.  Sad, but true.

 

It's what the country voted for, and continues to vote for.

I didn't vote for the lot who are running the country as they like it, I feel as though I'm being marginalised by drip feed, Effectively cutting my government pension by five percent per annum is a disgrace. I can't understand why it has been glossed over. No political activist has emerged to fight for the rights of the generation who built the UK economy by blood sweat and tears.

 

There are too many people crammed in to the UK, which already has a divided population: namely the haves and the havenots.

 

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

This is part of it.

 

In 2012 a new planning planning framework came in which favours all 'sustainable' new development.  Part of that means that all Councils need to provide a sustainable housing supply.  Where a council hasn't been able to demonstrate a sufficient supply of new homes to meet demand, the developer has them over a barrel and they know it.  They also know that the councils can ill-afford to stump up costs following an appeal.  So developers are able to push through new housing like this, even on green belt sites.  Where there's massive local opposition, the local councillors will block the development to protect their own seats but this will only delay things since the developer will then appeal and win and get costs off the council.  So all those local protesters will have achieved is less council money for local services.  Sad, but true.

 

It's what the country voted for, and continues to vote for.

 

Indeed, and it's what we need. 

 

Its about time the planning log jam was uncorked and an attempt is made to satisfy the unlimited demand for accommodation fuelled by successive governments' thirst for an ever larger population (more taxes, more power!) Time to buy shares in some of the house builders I think.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MtB said:

 

Indeed, and it's what we need. 

 

Its about time the planning log jam was uncorked and an attempt is made to satisfy the unlimited demand for accommodation fuelled by successive governments' thirst for an ever larger population (more taxes, more power!) Time to buy shares in some of the house builders I think.

 

 

Well that's certainly a point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Indeed, and it's what we need. 

 

Its about time the planning log jam was uncorked and an attempt is made to satisfy the unlimited demand for accommodation fuelled by successive governments' thirst for an ever larger population (more taxes, more power!) Time to buy shares in some of the house builders I think.

 

 

My understanding is that the big developers have sufficient in their land banks to last many, many years but they choose to control the house market (esp prices) by keeping it in the bank. Too often they like to go for sites that are the most profitable to develop, leaving spare brownfield sites to moulder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

My understanding is that the big developers have sufficient in their land banks to last many, many years but they choose to control the house market (esp prices) by keeping it in the bank. Too often they like to go for sites that are the most profitable to develop, leaving spare brownfield sites to moulder.

True. The reasons for any housing shortage in the UK are complex, but lack of planning approvals is not one of them.  The site above, by the Ashby is a perfect example of a high yield - low input site.  Why spend money decontaminating a former industrial site to build cheap housing when you can build over the greenbelt and create high-value housing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

True. The reasons for any housing shortage in the UK are complex, but lack of planning approvals is not one of them.  The site above, by the Ashby is a perfect example of a high yield - low input site.  Why spend money decontaminating a former industrial site to build cheap housing when you can build over the greenbelt and create high-value housing? 

 

Even the site isn't the problem -- from the housebuilder's point of view, if they're going to build some houses which makes them more money, cheap houses on an expensive ex-industrial site or expensive houses in a cheaper site in a nice village?

 

They're not a charity, as a company their job is to make the most money so they can pay their shareholders and executive bonuses, and blaming them for this is a bit like blaming a crocodile for biting your leg off when you cooled your feet off in its river -- it's what crocodiles are designed to do...

 

The housing system in the UK is broken but that's the fault of government over the years, especially since right-to-buy removed lots of low-cost housing and local authorities weren't allowed to replace it, and people seeing it as an investment not a means of providing people with decent affordable places to live, with no controls to stop locals being priced out -- indeed, with encouragement from the government.

 

So long as building and buying/selling housing (and the planning system) are driven purely by profit and investment, this isn't going to change... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

Even the site isn't the problem -- from the housebuilder's point of view, if they're going to build some houses which makes them more money, cheap houses on an expensive ex-industrial site or expensive houses in a cheaper site in a nice village?

 

They're not a charity, as a company their job is to make the most money so they can pay their shareholders and executive bonuses, and blaming them for this is a bit like blaming a crocodile for biting your leg off when you cooled your feet off in its river -- it's what crocodiles are designed to do...

 

The housing system in the UK is broken but that's the fault of government over the years, especially since right-to-buy removed lots of low-cost housing and local authorities weren't allowed to replace it, and people seeing it as an investment not a means of providing people with decent affordable places to live, with no controls to stop locals being priced out -- indeed, with encouragement from the government.

 

So long as building and buying/selling housing (and the planning system) are driven purely by profit and investment, this isn't going to change... 😞

I wasn't aware that I'd blamed the developers.  My earlier post was pretty clear as to where I think the blame lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I wasn't aware that I'd blamed the developers.  My earlier post was pretty clear as to where I think the blame lies.

 

You said "Why spend money decontaminating a former industrial site to build cheap housing when you can build over the greenbelt and create high-value housing? ", which sounds pretty much like blaming them 😉

 

(not that I'm defending them, but there are lots of people who keep blaming companies (and people) for doing things to maximise their profits or minimise tax like taking advantage of offshore or non-dom schemes, when the real problem is the loopholes allowed or encouraged by the government which let them do it)

 

I suspect we're in complete agreement as to the root cause of the housing problem, and they're sitting in Parliament right now... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

The reasons for any housing shortage in the UK are complex, but lack of planning approvals is not one of them. 

Actually, it is. My daughter as a Development Manager gets planning permission for a County Council scheme focussed on building affordable rental properties exclusively for local people who are otherwise priced out of their home towns and villages by second homes and holiday letting. At every turn they are opposed by Parish Councils who do not wish to see new building in their area, often even other departments of the same County Council place unrealistic obstacles in the way. Virtually every case will be won on appeal, but the processes involved and the time delays they cause seriously undermines the financial viability of the projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Actually, it is. My daughter as a Development Manager gets planning permission for a County Council scheme focussed on building affordable rental properties exclusively for local people who are otherwise priced out of their home towns and villages by second homes and holiday letting. At every turn they are opposed by Parish Councils who do not wish to see new building in their area, often even other departments of the same County Council place unrealistic obstacles in the way. Virtually every case will be won on appeal, but the processes involved and the time delays they cause seriously undermines the financial viability of the projects.

Actually I think you are not very far from agreeing with the preceding contributions. It is not the shortage of land but the impact of vested interests. Even the issue of PP is, in effect, a market with politicians seeking the best electoral return on their decisions, not what is bgest for their community as a whole. We used to have a society that saw fit (in the wake of scandals such as Rackman) to regulate housing as a social issue not a purely financial/political one. Time we had a recognition that wholly free markets are not necessarily the best thing for society as a whole.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Actually, it is. My daughter as a Development Manager gets planning permission for a County Council scheme focussed on building affordable rental properties exclusively for local people who are otherwise priced out of their home towns and villages by second homes and holiday letting. At every turn they are opposed by Parish Councils who do not wish to see new building in their area, often even other departments of the same County Council place unrealistic obstacles in the way. Virtually every case will be won on appeal, but the processes involved and the time delays they cause seriously undermines the financial viability of the projects.

 

Same problem as housebuilders -- people with the capital will do this to make money (perhaps as a retirement alternative to rubbish pensions, so can't always be blamed for it) because the government allows it to happen.

 

Which it does because it cares less about the low-paid local workers (who probably vote Labour) then the second/holiday home owners (who probably vote Conservative).... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Which it does because it cares less about the low-paid local workers (who probably vote Labour) then the second/holiday home owners (who probably vote Conservative).... 😞

 

If you breed a capitalist society, what else can be expected to happen? There's very little about Labour, over several decades, that suggests they were any different. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if we're going silly money...

 

Someone I know is selling their Thames-side house for £1.5m https://www.watersideresidential.co.uk/property-for-sale/?id=10374 ( they only bought it as "somewhere to meet the children and have a bit of fun", but they don't use it as much as they thought they would...)

 

actually they have done a very nice job with it, and it probably represents quite good value for that road.

 

This one has just sold at an asking of £3.5m https://www.watersideresidential.co.uk/property-for-sale/?id=10366 and the house next door went in days at offers over £2m https://www.watersideresidential.co.uk/property-for-sale/?id=10258 - house is a bit of an acquired taste, but the garden forms a peninsular into a lake (which adjoins the Thames), forming a sort of private island (more of an isthmus than an island, but it looks like one). Quite stunning if you venture into the lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/04/2022 at 15:55, Richard T said:

To return this thread to topic here is a large house for sale on the Soar at Barrow on Soar. It has good moorings and uninteruppted views across the river. Only £1.1m.

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/11633083/

That's the most pretentious motel I've ever seen.

Good views, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.