Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I think that's basically the Street Votes idea isn't it?

Which sounds good to me but doesn't feel like it's enough to have much impact but I'm not sure.

[Josquius]

I think that's basically the Street Votes idea isn't it?

Which sounds good to me but doesn't feel like it's enough to have much impact but I'm not sure.

All I know about street votes is the stuff about local neighbourhoods deciding on building; which I'd say is a big problem in the current system and one to tackle rather than strengthen.
If they do include financial incentives then at least thats some saving grace for it, still sounds very iffy though.

[Gups]

We need less local democracy in planning, not more.

[Sheilbh]

All I know about street votes is the stuff about local neighbourhoods deciding on building; which I'd say is a big problem in the current system and one to tackle rather than strengthen.
If they do include financial incentives then at least thats some saving grace for it, still sounds very iffy though.

Yeah I'm not sure how it worked but I feel like a big part of their pitch was that it would somehow allow existing residents (or owners) to benefit financially from allowing development. So basically slightly bribe them.

I think that might help but I'm also not totally sure because I don't think at least consciously that people's views on this are being shaped by the material that. So I don't think a bribe would necessarily help.

[Admiral Yi]

I've definately seen a shift in the culture and approach of my developer clients, although those tend to be the blue chip FTSE 100 developers. 

You posh motherfucker.

[Josquius]

We need less local democracy in planning, not more.

Though I would see there as being wiggle room in defining 'local' and 'less'.
I could potentially see advantages to stretching the definitions so somebody living 20 miles away counts as local and has their views that we absolutely need more housing in the area taken onboard just as much as the person who lives next door to the field and doesn't want to see any more humans in their life than they already do.
Destroy the power of NIMBYs who genuinely are just selfish bastards whilst providing local democracy.

All I know about street votes is the stuff about local neighbourhoods deciding on building; which I'd say is a big problem in the current system and one to tackle rather than strengthen.
If they do include financial incentives then at least thats some saving grace for it, still sounds very iffy though.

Yeah I'm not sure how it worked but I feel like a big part of their pitch was that it would somehow allow existing residents (or owners) to benefit financially from allowing development. So basically slightly bribe them.

I think that might help but I'm also not totally sure because I don't think at least consciously that people's views on this are being shaped by the material that. So I don't think a bribe would necessarily help.

In the way I'm imagining it I'd see it as more of a pay off/entitlement that softens the blow of developments that genuinely do harm them. It weakens what arguments they might have had to obstruct building and would make it a bit more palatable to have this reduction in local (nimby) power.
Sort of a fair future-proofed eminent domain.

The issue/place for hilarity I'd see as being where some body's property values rise... I'd love it if the NIMBYs would have to pay back the difference there, but of course then that hurts those in the gentrified areas and piss people off just for laughs.

[Gups]

I've definately seen a shift in the culture and approach of my developer clients, although those tend to be the blue chip FTSE 100 developers. 

You posh motherfucker.

Ha! I'll do anything for a buck - other clients include a fried chicken shop near the Spurs stadium. Only wear white shoes for running.

[Gups]

We need less local democracy in planning, not more.

Though I would see there as being wiggle room in defining 'local' and 'less'.
I could potentially see advantages to stretching the definitions so somebody living 20 miles away counts as local and has their views that we absolutely need more housing in the area taken onboard just as much as the person who lives next door to the field and doesn't want to see any more humans in their life than they already do.
Destroy the power of NIMBYs who genuinely are just selfish bastards whilst providing local democracy.

All I know about street votes is the stuff about local neighbourhoods deciding on building; which I'd say is a big problem in the current system and one to tackle rather than strengthen.
If they do include financial incentives then at least thats some saving grace for it, still sounds very iffy though.

Yeah I'm not sure how it worked but I feel like a big part of their pitch was that it would somehow allow existing residents (or owners) to benefit financially from allowing development. So basically slightly bribe them.

I think that might help but I'm also not totally sure because I don't think at least consciously that people's views on this are being shaped by the material that. So I don't think a bribe would necessarily help.

In the way I'm imagining it I'd see it as more of a pay off/entitlement that softens the blow of developments that genuinely do harm them. It weakens what arguments they might have had to obstruct building and would make it a bit more palatable to have this reduction in local (nimby) power.
Sort of a fair future-proofed eminent domain.

The issue/place for hilarity I'd see as being where some body's property values rise... I'd love it if the NIMBYs would have to pay back the difference there, but of course then that hurts those in the gentrified areas and piss people off just for laughs.

We used to have a perfectly good system based around regional planning policy and regional development agencies, which could ascertain need and deliver development to meet that need. Unfortunately fell prey to Cameron's stupid localism agenda.

[Sheilbh]

Although I do see green shoots in terms of language like this from Starmer today (stole from Guardian Liveblog):

Some nation will lead the world in offshore wind, why not Britain?

I'll tell you one reason why not: our planning system.

I met the people running the National Grid recently and you know what they said to me, they said: if we want to get anywhere near our goals on net zero, we need to build more infrastructure in the next seven years than we have in the last 30.

Let that sink in.

And yet – what's the average time it takes to build an off-shore windfarm? Thirteen years ... an entire Tory government.

And now housebuilding – crashing to a record low. Onshore wind – just two turbines built last year.

Critical infrastructure like HS2, built more slowly and expensively because of the red tape.

And the net result, an economy stuck in second gear. A doom-loop of low growth, low productivity and high taxes. A generation and its hopes – an entire future – blocked by those, who more often than not, enjoy the secure homes and jobs that they're denying to others.

The evidence could not be clearer. There are 38 countries in the OECD, and we are the second worst when it comes to the effectiveness of our planning system.

And just think, some people still call our problems the "productivity puzzle". We know the problems, we've just got to show a bit more bottle to fix them.

I feel like in the last year think tankers and politicans on both sides have realised it's an issue and someone will need to grasp the nettle. I think there will be political benefits too.

The point on grid and electrifying everything and wind as part of net zero is also really important especially when you read stories like this from the Guardian yesterday - which isn't really about planning (although I suspect that's what the urge to the public at the end relates to):

Grid connection delays for low-carbon projects 'unacceptable', says Ofgem
Watchdog's chief writes to energy bosses as Grid sets out plan to cut waits by up to a decade
Alex Lawson
Tue 16 May 2023 00.01 BST

The energy watchdog for Great Britain will label the decade-long wait to connect low-carbon projects to the electricity grid as "unacceptable", amid tensions over a "blame game" for a mounting backlog of green power projects.

Jonathan Brearley, the chief executive of Ofgem, has written to energy bosses to warn that the current system, whereby energy projects queue for their connection, could be replaced by new methods to match power generation with demand.

He will use his appearance at an energy conference to criticise a "legacy of stalled, unviable and often highly speculative 'zombie' projects blocking ready-to-go solar, wind and other renewable schemes stuck behind them".

Renewable energy developers have accused the government of a "lack of vision" in planning the grid. They have expressed concerns that wait times of up to 15 years have made it difficult to attract investment as the UK competes with the $369bn (£295bn) US package of climate subsidies.

Officials are attempting to rebalance Britain's energy network away from fossil fuels in favour of renewables, with a target of decarbonising the UK power system by 2035.

Separately on Tuesday, National Grid's electricity system operator (ESO) published a plan to speed up connecting to the grid. It involves allowing developers to leave the queue without incurring a financial penalty, creating new contracts related to how quickly a project has progressed and allowing sites that store electricity to connect faster.

The ESO said 70% of the pipeline of projects that have a connection date after 2026 would be able to connect between two and 10 years earlier because of the changes.

Tensions have emerged in recent weeks over who is to blame for the delays. In an interview with the Observer, the National Grid chief executive, John Pettigrew, called for his company to be allowed to do "anticipatory investment"to help renewable projects' connections, rather than wait for a grid connection agreement to be signed on a specific project.

However, Brearley will counter this by telling the Utility Week Live conference in Birmingham that Ofgem has "removed all barriers to National Grid investing in grid expansion and upgrades ahead of applications" through its "invest and connect policy".

Ofgem announced a pilot of this model in December, accelerating £20bn investment in connecting up 26 offshore wind projects. It has launched a consultation to extend this approach to other energy technologies.

However, the Ofgem chief will attempt to quell tensions over the situation. "Too often there is blame game between industry, generators, network operators and government. This needs to stop. We all need to take joint responsibility for getting the connections regime sorted once and for all," he will say.

Ofgem estimated that between 60% and 70% of high-voltage transmission schemes never connect to the grid. It found more than half of those projects in the queue had to wait five years or more to be offered a connection date.

Brearley will say: "Polite queueing may be in the very best of British traditions – but the first come, first served connections regime is not fit for purpose if we are to end fossil fuel power within 12 years. It is unacceptable energy projects are blocking great low-carbon schemes from plugging into the transmission network – with connection times of a decade or more.

"Poor connection speeds risk undermining us creating a net zero electricity system, protecting consumers from high and volatile gas prices and ultimately securing energy security and independence."

On Monday, National Grid set out its plan to hit the 2035 target, which included planning reforms, a shift away from the "first come, first served" connection system, and providing benefits to local people in return for hosting renewable projects.

Pettigrew has urged the public not to block efforts to connect up low-carbon projects.

I know many people here really care about Brexit and think that's a main driver of problems in the UK economy - but there are just so many areas where all we need to do is get out of our own way

[Grey Fox]

Might be time to find ways to show locals all these required infrastructure beneficial for them. That and give them money.

You blame yourself and your fellow Brits for the situation, S but myself I see this has another victim of the US cultural hegemony.

[Sheilbh]

Might be time to find ways to show locals all these required infrastructure beneficial for them. That and give them money.

Can't help but think of those six complaints about a new GP surgery because of the increased "noise of car doors closing"

You blame yourself and your fellow Brits for the situation, S but myself I see this has another victim of the US cultural hegemony.

How so?

[Grey Fox]

It's been 40 years of us watching the USA producing content that shows the downside of expansion of governments, that developers are crooks, that gated suburban communities are a) the signs of success b) populated by racists karens, etc.

It seeps into our consciousnesses and we start thinking our society will be that way too.

[Josquius]

It definitely is in large part toxic individualism creeping over

[Valmy]

Kind of surprised people look over at our country and think "yes...yes...this is good, we should be like those guys" but granted the grass is always greener. The Brits certainly do not understand why people admire and love their country from afar.

[Sheilbh]

Kind of surprised people look over at our country and think "yes...yes...this is good, we should be like those guys" but granted the grass is always greener. The Brits certainly do not understand why people admire and love their country from afar.

I feel like that sort of soft power is never necessarily that conscious, or accurate.

Maybe there's an Americanisation - although England's great suburban expansion was inter-war Metroland:



And it was enabled by commuter trains, not cars. Interesting that none of the posters I've seen even include cars - which makes sense on a purely practical level that the UK was vastly less motorised than, say, the US or France. Also I think this type of suburbia happened because of railway companies buying up huge chunks of land around their rails and building suburbs around stations which they then sold on.

Tamas will probably note lots of the weird small windows style