Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Admiral Yi]

If dumps don't charge why the hell do people do it?

[Gups]

I've no idea what you've been seeing on youtube.
It does happen. And it's dumb as public tips don't charge. It tends to be very localised with some spots getting a lot of it whilst wealthier people might never see it.

Lots of fly tipping in my middle class London street. In this part of teh country, at least, it is not at all free to use public tips - at least not in South London. You can take recyclable materials to a dump for free (you have to provide proof of local residency) but certainly not construction waste. Only one tip in South London accepts any kind of construction waste and only non-commercial (i.e. DIY). Charge is £215/tonne mimimum spend £116.

[Gups]

Resources are finite but I think the bigger issue here is our entire discretionary planning system. Every proposal needs to obtain planning permission, local councils vote on decisions by planning officers, central government can call decisions above a certain size in for review (Gups would actually know about this - I do not). But the entire system is set up so permission is what requires action and the default is nothing can be built. I think we probably need to reverse that - while obviously protecting genuine green belt and community assets etc - so the default is that you can build (if you meet minimum standards which councils should set) and it takes action to reject it.

God knows, there is plenty wrong with our planning system (and the Govt has now ditched the proposed new Planning Act having taken no action on its own White Paper) but this isn't really accurate for lots of reasons including:

1. There's a presumption in favour of development. Planning is not discretionary, it is plan and policy led. A local planning authoirty can't lawfully refuse planning permission if the proposed development is consistent with planning policy

2. Applicants have a right to appeal against refusal

3. There are lots of types of development for which planning permission is not required at all under permitted development rights including conversion from office to residential

4. Local authorities have an obligation to meet certain targets and to demnstrate a five year supply of housing through allocation of land for housing. Allocations are hotly contested in local plan development. If they don't meet the targets consistently or can't demonstrate supply, then someting called teh "tilted balance" applies so that permission for residential development can only be refused if the harms whcih woudl arise significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

[Sheilbh]

That's really helpful, thanks.

I want to fix the real reasons whatever they are - so there's more building. I thought the Planning Act sounded like a start but, as you say, that got abandoned.

Feels like planning is one of many third rails in British politics that is just too contentious politically to reform. It's like energy or social care or so many other things. Ultimately it's the fault of political leaders but I think public opinion does have some responsibility. We want people to be homeowners and have that opportunity, and we don't want just indiscriminate building wherever - but public opinion is against every single concrete policy that would allow us to achieve those things.

Same goes for not wanting the lights to go out and wanting to transition to green energy, or not wanting people to have to sell their homes for social care but not wanting taxes to go up. At some point I think a leader needs to confront that a little head on - instead of just letting it drift until, after 20 years (like now), we're in a bit of a crisis on all of thosse issues.

[Tamas]

I think the property price bubble just has us trapped. It takes so much money to buy your own property that once you have, any effort to indirectly decrease its value (like new properties built in your area) can cause (at least the worry of) financial issues for you, especially when fixed terms longer than 5 years seemed unheard of here until very recently.

It's a bit like a massive ponzy scheme, really. The later you join the less lucrative it is for you but still nice as long as people keep buying in. Once that stops either because it over inflated itself or the government stops actively and passively fueling it, those who joined neae the end of it will be absolutely screwed.

[Josquius]

I'm not sure that more supply =lower value is too much of a factor in people opposing building - I'd say its more it takes away what is "theirs".
Eg. If there was talk of building housing on the field outside my house I'd oppose it as I like having a field outside my house.
I do think compensation should be given in cases like this to offset making it a lot harder to block developments, like with eg infrastructure works.

Rather than bringing house prices down, which wouldn't be great, the better way to tackle it would instead be to try and massively reduce the rise in house prices so inflation can catch up. A lot fewer obvious losers then.

[Gups]

I'm not sure that more supply =lower value is too much of a factor in people opposing building - I'd say its more it takes away what is "theirs".
Eg. If there was talk of building housing on the field outside my house I'd oppose it as I like having a field outside my house.
I do think compensation should be given in cases like this to offset making it a lot harder to block developments, like with eg infrastructure works.

Rather than bringing house prices down, which wouldn't be great, the better way to tackle it would instead be to try and massively reduce the rise in house prices so inflation can catch up. A lot fewer obvious losers then.

The idea of compensation for people affected by development is often floated but always falls down because there's simply no way of knowing where it stops. Buidling on the field opposite you may seem like an obvious basis for a compensation payment but what about people a couple of streets back who have a view of the field? Or those in the next village who will be affected by increased traffic. We already have it in some sense in that developers are supposed to pay for the impact of new development by financing new public realm, schools etc.

MOreover, and importantly, if compensation were to be substantial enough to buy off objections then prices would have to go up equally.

Anyway, expect things to get much worse going forward. Construction cost inflation is running so high that very few schemes are viable right now. A 2,000 unit scheme I've been working on now in southern England would need tens of millions of public funding to become viable even with fairly low levels of affordable housing. A lot of developers will either land bank or look to more valuable uses (logistics etc).

[Sheilbh]

I think the property price bubble just has us trapped. It takes so much money to buy your own property that once you have, any effort to indirectly decrease its value (like new properties built in your area) can cause (at least the worry of) financial issues for you, especially when fixed terms longer than 5 years seemed unheard of here until very recently.

It's a bit like a massive ponzy scheme, really. The later you join the less lucrative it is for you but still nice as long as people keep buying in. Once that stops either because it over inflated itself or the government stops actively and passively fueling it, those who joined neae the end of it will be absolutely screwed.

I'm not sure that's right. There's a low stock of existing empty properties and for about twenty years we've had population growth running at about 100,000 more than the number of new properties we've been building. I'm not sure that's a bubble - it feels more like chronic shortage of supply, and every government that does something to "help" the housing market does it on the demand side.

Having said that I think cheap mortgages have played a huge part in this. I think the financialisation stuff is an important factor and don't know what level of interest rates they can survive - but we may be about to test that if we're moving from super-low interest rates of the last decade.

Also the thing I find most annoying is that doesn't take much money to own a house here - the issue with all the price rises is that it takes a lot of time and saving, because it is a lot of money, to get a mortgage. But generally people spend less of their incomes on mortgage costs than rent, all of my friends who own pay less on a mortgage than I pay in rent and the cost of a mortgage for me for a "cheap" property in the area I'm interested in would be lower than rent. The only difference is that instead of building up my ownership of an aseet, I'm paying for someone else's But for me the nightmare is very much the deposit, not the mortgage costs.

But I agree with Jos - it's the intangibles that people worry about with new builds. "Ruin the view", "change the area", "I didn't move here to live in a city" etc. Plus old-fashioned small-c conservatism of not liking change in your area. I think it doesn't help that lots of new builds are quite ugly

Anyway, expect things to get much worse going forward. Construction cost inflation is running so high that very few schemes are viable right now. A 2,000 unit scheme I've been working on now in southern England would need tens of millions of public funding to become viable even with fairly low levels of affordable housing. A lot of developers will either land bank or look to more valuable uses (logistics etc).

Oh

Separately police have issued first 20 fines to people in Downing Street over parties - I don't think Number 10's line will hold on this. Their furrent line is that they don't accept the law was broken, staff are not obliged to tell their boss if they've been fined (don't know how that works with vetting) and the PM has nothing to say until the end of the investigation.

Labour used the day to move for publishing information about the appointment of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords (Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia). The government was going to oppose it but found there was not much appetite for that on the Tory backbenches (and a whiff of the Paterson vote all over again) so they've backed down and will back the motion. Lebedev's tweeted a little bit of a response

Evgeny Lebedev
@mrevgenylebedev
Openness and transparency are pillars of our democratic system, so I welcome the call for security advice about me provided to HOLAC to be released. I have nothing to hide.
And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from @Keir_Starmer: 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir.'
There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you @UKLabour?#shadowofyourformerself

[Duque de Bragança]

Housing situation in the UK must be really bad if housing policies for Paris (Greater Paris I assume) are seen as better as in the UK.

[Josquius]

I'm not sure that more supply =lower value is too much of a factor in people opposing building - I'd say its more it takes away what is "theirs".
Eg. If there was talk of building housing on the field outside my house I'd oppose it as I like having a field outside my house.
I do think compensation should be given in cases like this to offset making it a lot harder to block developments, like with eg infrastructure works.

Rather than bringing house prices down, which wouldn't be great, the better way to tackle it would instead be to try and massively reduce the rise in house prices so inflation can catch up. A lot fewer obvious losers then.

The idea of compensation for people affected by development is often floated but always falls down because there's simply no way of knowing where it stops. Buidling on the field opposite you may seem like an obvious basis for a compensation payment but what about people a couple of streets back who have a view of the field? Or those in the next village who will be affected by increased traffic. We already have it in some sense in that developers are supposed to pay for the impact of new development by financing new public realm, schools etc.

MOreover, and importantly, if compensation were to be substantial enough to buy off objections then prices would have to go up equally.

Anyway, expect things to get much worse going forward. Construction cost inflation is running so high that very few schemes are viable right now. A 2,000 unit scheme I've been working on now in southern England would need tens of millions of public funding to become viable even with fairly low levels of affordable housing. A lot of developers will either land bank or look to more valuable uses (logistics etc).

How does it work with eg hs2?
Only if they're directly demolishing your house to build the line and if you're going to be right next to it then tough luck?

I do think there's room to quantify and standardise this somewhat. Take into account how much your property value will drop for losing a local playing field plus a little for the inconvenience.

[Gups]

I'm not sure that more supply =lower value is too much of a factor in people opposing building - I'd say its more it takes away what is "theirs".
Eg. If there was talk of building housing on the field outside my house I'd oppose it as I like having a field outside my house.
I do think compensation should be given in cases like this to offset making it a lot harder to block developments, like with eg infrastructure works.

Rather than bringing house prices down, which wouldn't be great, the better way to tackle it would instead be to try and massively reduce the rise in house prices so inflation can catch up. A lot fewer obvious losers then.

The idea of compensation for people affected by development is often floated but always falls down because there's simply no way of knowing where it stops. Buidling on the field opposite you may seem like an obvious basis for a compensation payment but what about people a couple of streets back who have a view of the field? Or those in the next village who will be affected by increased traffic. We already have it in some sense in that developers are supposed to pay for the impact of new development by financing new public realm, schools etc.

MOreover, and importantly, if compensation were to be substantial enough to buy off objections then prices would have to go up equally.

Anyway, expect things to get much worse going forward. Construction cost inflation is running so high that very few schemes are viable right now. A 2,000 unit scheme I've been working on now in southern England would need tens of millions of public funding to become viable even with fairly low levels of affordable housing. A lot of developers will either land bank or look to more valuable uses (logistics etc).

How does it work with eg hs2?
Only if they're directly demolishing your house to build the line and if you're going to be right next to it then tough luck?

I do think there's room to quantify and standardise this somewhat. Take into account how much your property value will drop for losing a local playing field plus a little for the inconvenience.

Ah, you really are in my specialist area now (about 50% of my work is claims against HS2). It works a bit differently because HS2 is constructed using compulsory purchase powers and with statutory immunity to nuisance claims.

Fundamentally, if they don't acquire your property, you can only really make a claim for loss of value if access to property is removed or severely restricted or if the use of the railway means property depreciation due to noise etc. YOu have to wait until the railway is actually in use. You'll never be right next to HS2, they have a large protective zone around the railway (unless its in tunnels or on an embankment).

What you are proposing for general development has been a debated for as long as there has been planning and compulsory purchase. The early/mid C19th jurisprudence goes back and forth but it's been pretty much settled for about 150 years that compensation for the effects of development are very hard to quantify and would effectively price development out of the market unless the compensation was token. Similarly, it's been impossible to devise a scheme to tax value added to property. by public schemes e.g. a new railway station.

[Sheilbh]

Rather brave statement by Jamie Wallis, a Tory MP, coming out as trans and as suffering from PTSD following a rape. This is, I think, the first trans MP in the UK - he has not as, yet, said what his preferred pronouns or name are:

Tory MP Jamie Wallis says he is trans and reveals rape ordeal
Bridgend MP also says he was blackmailed and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder
Wed 30 Mar 2022 10.11 BST
Last modified on Wed 30 Mar 2022 10.28 BST

A Conservative MP has revealed he was raped and blackmailed, that he wants to transition to be a woman and also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Jamie Wallis was praised for his bravery after revealing that he was "not OK", and also for being open about having gender dysphoria.

The Bridgend MP said: "I have never lived my truth and I'm not sure how ... perhaps it starts with telling everyone."

The MP said: "I'm trans. Or to be more accurate, I want to be.

I've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and I've felt this way since I was a very young child. I had no intention of ever sharing this with you. I always imagined I would leave politics well before I ever said this out loud.

"There was a close call in April 2020 when someone blackmailed me, outed me to my father and sent photographs to other family members.

"He wanted £50,000 to keep quiet. The police were so supportive, so understanding and on this occasion the system worked."

The MP said the offender was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison after admitting his guilt.

"For a while it seemed as though I would be able to get on with things and move on," Wallis wrote.

"Being an MP and hiding something like this was always going to be tough, but I arrogantly assumed I was up for it.

"Well, I'm not."

Giving details of the rape, the MP said: "I 'hooked up' with someone who I met online and when I chose to say 'no' on the basis that he wouldn't wear a condom he chose to rape me.

"I have not been myself since this incident and I don't think I will ever recover. It is not something you ever forget, and it is not something you ever move on from.

"Since then things have really taken a tumble. I am not OK."

The MP was arrested and subsequently fined over a car crash last year. Wallis said he fled the scene after the incident in November "because I was terrified".

"I have PTSD and I honestly have no idea what I was doing except I was overcome by an overwhelming sense of fear."

The personal statement came after a night out for Tory MPs, at which "I was reminded of the incredible support those you work with can provide".

"I've had a lot of support from the whips since I was elected," the MP said.

"Not for the reasons you might think, but there's a lot that goes on in MPs' lives and the whips play an important wellbeing role – as far as I've seen they try their best to support and help MPs who are having a tough time. Well they've certainly earned their keep with me."

Fellow Tory MPs showed their support for Wallis, with the former whip Mike Fabricant saying it was "a very brave statement".

Alicia Kearns said: "You have changed this country today. Your bravery will give hope and courage to people across our country.

"From the trans community, to survivors we all here for you, as you live your life as your true self, but ever as our friend."

Johnson' praised him for his bravery. Lots of MPs praising that and also saying they're proud of him for coming out.

[garbon]

So much trauma.

[Sheilbh]

So much trauma.

Yeah. It's a really awful story of things just piling on and in the background dealing with his gender identity (he has said that "for the time being, I will continue to present as I always have and will use he/him/his pronouns").

But it's good to see the messages of support from across his own party - and from all other parties. Hopefully that lasts as I can't even imagine what it would be like to transition in the public eye. I hope it does help others in the rest of society as well.

Edit: Also slightly cheering to hear that - amid all of the other allegations that have been made about the way whips operate - that they've been supportive and helpful in this case.

[Jacob]

Yeah. Given the state of the discourse on trans people in general and the UK in specific, it's encouraging to see the support from the Conservative party on this. Honestly, it is not what I would've expected.