Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

We are excepionally skilled at coming up with bespoke solutions specifically designed to address the issue's needs that end up combining huge expense, massive complexity and terrible outcomes. Whether it's housing, infrastructure, childcare, public procurement - it's there.

We have at least turned this into an economic strength. I saw the FT piece breaking down UK services exports (by far the biggest economies) and discovering that we are world leaders in exporting consultancy services

[Gups]

We do have limited zoning in the UK. The green belts are zones. Many cities have central acticities zones.

The Government published a White Paper in 2020 which would have introduced a form of zoning with local design codes but didn't have the balls to carry it through opposition from Jenkins and his ilk.

[crazy canuck]

There's nothing wrong with Nimbys except that they have an outsized power on decision making. Planning is a quasi-judicial process and should be taken out of the hand of local politicians if (as seems to be the case in too many places) they can't perform their function objectively.

So many examples, of planning officers and council lawyers telling planning committees that if they refuse a policy compliant application it will be granted on appeal and the Council will have to pay hundreds of thousands of costs but Councillors would rather play to the peanut gallery.

Yep, there seems to be a rash of local government and other statutory decision-makers, wanting to act well beyond authority in order to "do the right thing".

[Josquius]

The UK is listed as an exception to zoning on the Wikipedia page for Zoning. Is the UK too special for it to work?

1: I wouldn't take English wikipedia having a lot of stuff about how the UK is different as meaning we're necessarily the only place that doesn't do it that way. Not that I do know any examples that are different (well, bar Ireland, but obviously that's a bit of a cheat).

2: "Is the UK too special for it to work" - this seems to imply it always works elsewhere. There are plenty of places out there where it absolutely doesn't work (housing issues are also a frequent topic of discussion on the Canadian thread for instance).

3: I know very little about Law. So I've no idea but it is a question what other aspects of British planning law would interfere with us copying a zoning way of doing things. Would love to see a neutral writeup around it. Simplified for interested lay-folk.

Again I do think Prince Charles had the right of things on this one. One of the good things about Poundbury was the mixing of different designs, mock Tudor next to mock Georgian, it created a much more organically grown feeling than typical soulless identikit newbuild estates. That on British estates the houses all tend to look the same is something I've had several continental people comment on.
Good for aesthetics and lets us mix up the types of housing a lot more.

Semi related but this minor local story caught my interest the other day.
https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/politics/council/existing-tenants-to-be-relocated-so-that-council-flats-in-blyth-can-be-demolished-4587246
Fits into the old "Build more houses" vs. "Build the right houses in the right places" question. I found it curious that these one person homes are the ones judged undesirable whereas in the cities they are precisely what we need more of- but that demographic doesn't live in Blyth (maybe the Blythian examples all joined the navy?)

[Gups]

3: I know very little about Law. So I've no idea but it is a question what other aspects of British planning law would interfere with us copying a zoning way of doing things. Would love to see a neutral writeup around it. Simplified for interested lay-folk

You could only allow a zoning approach by changing the law. As mentioned above the Johnson Government proposed that in a  white paper. There's loads of commentary about it

Here's an example.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-planning-white-paper/5107402.article

[Jacob]

Unless Tolkien was bitching specifically about stuff in *his* back yard I wouldn't call him a NIMBY.

Agreed. IMO NIMBYism is parochial and location specific. Many NIMBYs are cool with all sorts of development, just as long as it's not in their specific backyard.

Tolkien's attitude seems more about disliking a number of changes from modernity on a broader scale.

[Sheilbh]

Hmmm - that makes me think Tolkien may be emblematic of British NIMBYim then

I'm not sure it's backyard specific. I think lots oppose all developments/buildings anywhere.

[PJL]

Get the impression that Tolkien was very much opposed to specific developments in his local area, and also being opposed to more general developments in industrialisation in general. A very classical nimbyist, IMO.

[Sheilbh]

Entering hitherto unheard of realms of NIMBYism (this isn't NIMBYism but is just it's very difficult to build things):

Cambridge University cancer hospital opposed by environmental agency

The Environment Agency has objected to the hospital plans over water scarcity concerns

I'd add water scarcity is becoming an increasing issue despite the fact that we are a very wet island. But we haven't built a reservoir in about thirty five years (for reasons I'm sure you can guess), while the populations gone from about 57.5 million to 68 million.

There are actually now developed plans on how water rationing would work - and it is insane that that is more politically possible than building a reservoir in a Lib Dem seat

I'd add the Environment Agency is a statutory consultee - and if I were in Boris Johnson's position, a Tory Prime Minister committed to leveling up the country with a fondness for grands projets, I would simply not have appointed to run the EA a former chair of Friends of the Earth and Green parliamentary candidate.

[Josquius]

Perhaps the British nimby simply defines their back yard as Britain.
Nimbyness does come in degrees. Those not wanting stuff that could negatively impact their life through to in practice opposed to building anything anywhere.


And on reservoirs just the other day I watched a short public information film from the 80s about kielder reservoir. Always considered a bit of a white elephant since, built for the coming massive industrial need that... Never happened.
It is amazing after a year solid of rain water shortages can be talked about. But such is Britain.

3: I know very little about Law. So I've no idea but it is a question what other aspects of British planning law would interfere with us copying a zoning way of doing things. Would love to see a neutral writeup around it. Simplified for interested lay-folk

You could only allow a zoning approach by changing the law. As mentioned above the Johnson Government proposed that in a  white paper. There's loads of commentary about it

Here's an example.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-planning-white-paper/5107402.article

What I meant was are there aspects of the law seperate to those directly related that would make zoning tough. Like the strength we give communities to complain, preservation laws, etc..?


Some of the stuff on there sounds like it has promise but others bits does sound potentially iffy. Couldn't councils declare basically everywhere protected?
And a lack of cooperation is a very dangerous thing.
Also something that bothers me with zoning in general is it tends to define upper limits whilst ignoring efficient lower limit use.

[Gups]

Perhaps the British nimby simply defines their back yard as Britain.
Nimbyness does come in degrees. Those not wanting stuff that could negatively impact their life through to in practice opposed to building anything anywhere.


And on reservoirs just the other day I watched a short public information film from the 80s about kielder reservoir. Always considered a bit of a white elephant since, built for the coming massive industrial need that... Never happened.
It is amazing after a year solid of rain water shortages can be talked about. But such is Britain.

3: I know very little about Law. So I've no idea but it is a question what other aspects of British planning law would interfere with us copying a zoning way of doing things. Would love to see a neutral writeup around it. Simplified for interested lay-folk

You could only allow a zoning approach by changing the law. As mentioned above the Johnson Government proposed that in a  white paper. There's loads of commentary about it

Here's an example.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-planning-white-paper/5107402.article

What I meant was are there aspects of the law seperate to those directly related that would make zoning tough. Like the strength we give communities to complain, preservation laws, etc..?


Some of the stuff on there sounds like it has promise but others bits does sound potentially iffy. Couldn't councils declare basically everywhere protected?
And a lack of cooperation is a very dangerous thing.
Also something that bothers me with zoning in general is it tends to define upper limits whilst ignoring efficient lower limit use.

All planning law is statutory including the right to object etc, listed building acts etc.

None of it happening Jos. It got launched with lots of fanfare then ditched after opposition by Tory backbenchers. It would have worked because councils would have mandatory housing targets

Duty to co-operate is rubbish. Just slows everything and adds costs for no benefit.

[Josquius]

Duty to co-operate is rubbish. Just slows everything and adds costs for no benefit.

No idea how it works (or doesn't) in practice in the UK but in Japan I've seen a few examples of municipalities completely screwing over their neighbours- small towns giving the OK for shopping malls that suck the life out of neighbouring cities.
Already our cities can squabble in a self destructive manner so I worry it could be worse.

[Tamas]

So is Cameron our de facto PM now or Sunak still pretends to be doing things?

[Sheilbh]

There was me thinking it's good to have a Foreign Secretary who is actually doing the job. PM does a recorded statement and a statement in parliament, FM does media round etc.

[Sheilbh]

My word the quotes from Truss' book are mad. I liked that her first thought on the death of the Queen was "why me?"

Also her realisation that her premiership developed not necessarily to the country's advantage - the last line of the book:

The whole experience as Prime Minister had been quite surreal and my resignation seemed like just another dramatic moment in a very strange film in which I had somehow been cast. Things had not worked out as I had hoped.

Slightly alarming that her experience of being Prime Minister was the same as the entire country's experience of watching her be Prime Minister.

The fact she's published it and doing a round of interviews spouting mad shit in the 6 months or so before the next election makes me think she just really hates all of her former colleagues and/or Sunak.