Without strong leadership on an issue, it can be tough to push it through. Without reform of electoral systems or local government, we get silly things happening at local level. And without a plan to deal with NIMBYism, we don't get anywhere.
Here, we have a great local mayor, a good metropolitan mayor, and our local MP is a friend. Yet can they do everything that could be needed? No, because they're blocked by government.
The planning system here is incredibly decentralised and decisions can even come down to the opinion of a single planning officer or conservation officer. So I suppose you can blame govt for devolving power but then aren’t we all in favour of them doing that. They are also beholden to quangos such as Natural England, Historic England etc some of which, particularly Nat Eng recently, actively hamper govt objectives to increase housing supply. But aren’t we supposed to listen to experts. Add in shenanigans from the Lib Dems, as referenced above, and Labour, who are now claiming they will get Britain building (headline policy being exactly the same as the one Gove was forced to abandon after the Lib Dem by-election win) and it’s really not just as simple as it’s all the Tories fault.
Thanks. I’m not very well versed in the ins and outs of planning in the UK, I only have anecdotal evidence to go on.
My comment on the gov is more around the lack of interest in infrastructure projects that make a difference to people facing inequality, which is common to both the UK and Hungary. Focus on big projects that look good on paper but don’t make a big difference to the “working man” is a big problem and is not just a Tory problem, just it’s been worse the past decade. Not helped by Boris, as that’s his default setting.
Without being a complete knob (well in the rear view mirror I hear you say) if you only have anecdotal evidence then well… it’s the internet.
As for ‘big projects’, there’s a tonne of evidence that they get the most bang for your buck. Even for the ‘working man’. Local stuff will win you votes, though. Technically, giving priority to local piecemeal infrastructure is a populist policy.
The planning system here is incredibly decentralised and decisions can even come down to the opinion of a single planning officer or conservation officer. So I suppose you can blame govt for devolving power but then aren’t we all in favour of them doing that. They are also beholden to quangos such as Natural England, Historic England etc some of which, particularly Nat Eng recently, actively hamper govt objectives to increase housing supply. But aren’t we supposed to listen to experts. Add in shenanigans from the Lib Dems, as referenced above, and Labour, who are now claiming they will get Britain building (headline policy being exactly the same as the one Gove was forced to abandon after the Lib Dem by-election win) and it’s really not just as simple as it’s all the Tories fault.
Thanks. I’m not very well versed in the ins and outs of planning in the UK, I only have anecdotal evidence to go on.
My comment on the gov is more around the lack of interest in infrastructure projects that make a difference to people facing inequality, which is common to both the UK and Hungary. Focus on big projects that look good on paper but don’t make a big difference to the “working man” is a big problem and is not just a Tory problem, just it’s been worse the past decade. Not helped by Boris, as that’s his default setting.
Without being a complete knob (well in the rear view mirror I hear you say) if you only have anecdotal evidence then well… it’s the internet.
As for ‘big projects’, there’s a tonne of evidence that they get the most bang for your buck. Even for the ‘working man’. Local stuff will win you votes, though. Technically, giving priority to local piecemeal infrastructure is a populist policy.
Getting more information on UK planning law isn't high priority for me...as I don't live there nor plan to in the next 12 years at least.
But I'm always interested to hear other voices to the ones I do hear.
On the "big projects", I was more talking about HS2, etc., which all seem a collossal waste of time and money to me, when more funds could be spent on commuter infrastructure "locally", as in cross-pennines, for instance. I got the train from London to Bangor via Crewe regularly 20 years ago, and it was fine. Sure, it took time, but it's a long bloody journey, ffs. I'd rather spend the money earmarked for improving that connection on improving local connections, not just connections to London.
Thanks. I’m not very well versed in the ins and outs of planning in the UK, I only have anecdotal evidence to go on.
My comment on the gov is more around the lack of interest in infrastructure projects that make a difference to people facing inequality, which is common to both the UK and Hungary. Focus on big projects that look good on paper but don’t make a big difference to the “working man” is a big problem and is not just a Tory problem, just it’s been worse the past decade. Not helped by Boris, as that’s his default setting.
Without being a complete knob (well in the rear view mirror I hear you say) if you only have anecdotal evidence then well… it’s the internet.
As for ‘big projects’, there’s a tonne of evidence that they get the most bang for your buck. Even for the ‘working man’. Local stuff will win you votes, though. Technically, giving priority to local piecemeal infrastructure is a populist policy.
Getting more information on UK planning law isn't high priority for me...as I don't live there nor plan to in the next 12 years at least.
But I'm always interested to hear other voices to the ones I do hear.
On the "big projects", I was more talking about HS2, etc., which all seem a collossal waste of time and money to me, when more funds could be spent on commuter infrastructure "locally", as in cross-pennines, for instance. I got the train from London to Bangor via Crewe regularly 20 years ago, and it was fine. Sure, it took time, but it's a long bloody journey, ffs. I'd rather spend the money earmarked for improving that connection on improving local connections, not just connections to London.
Being a knob again but if all you have is anecdotal evidence then perhaps sit out the discussion.
Cross Pennines is a big project. Just making the existing line fit for the 21st century is a big project, let alone providing a high speed east west line.
For the umpteenth time on here, pretty much all midland and northern politicians of all persuasions wanted HS2 (not that they had to find the money for it). The mayors of both Birmingham/West Mids/Whatever it is called and Manchester setup a board to try to sort private funding for the Birmingham - Crewe leg of HS2 they thought it was such a good idea. The Northern Powerhouse Partnership, a left leaning think tank, were huge cheerleaders of HS2 (again, they didn’t have to find the money for it).
There’s also the oft missed point that HS2 was partly designed to free up existing train lines to improve and increase local services…
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:26 pm
Without being a complete knob (well in the rear view mirror I hear you say) if you only have anecdotal evidence then well… it’s the internet.
As for ‘big projects’, there’s a tonne of evidence that they get the most bang for your buck. Even for the ‘working man’. Local stuff will win you votes, though. Technically, giving priority to local piecemeal infrastructure is a populist policy.
Getting more information on UK planning law isn't high priority for me...as I don't live there nor plan to in the next 12 years at least.
But I'm always interested to hear other voices to the ones I do hear.
On the "big projects", I was more talking about HS2, etc., which all seem a collossal waste of time and money to me, when more funds could be spent on commuter infrastructure "locally", as in cross-pennines, for instance. I got the train from London to Bangor via Crewe regularly 20 years ago, and it was fine. Sure, it took time, but it's a long bloody journey, ffs. I'd rather spend the money earmarked for improving that connection on improving local connections, not just connections to London.
Being a knob again but if all you have is anecdotal evidence then perhaps sit out the discussion.
Cross Pennines is a big project. Just making the existing line fit for the 21st century is a big project, let alone providing a high speed east west line.
For the umpteenth time on here, pretty much all midland and northern politicians of all persuasions wanted HS2 (not that they had to find the money for it). The mayors of both Birmingham/West Mids/Whatever it is called and Manchester setup a board to try to sort private funding for the Birmingham - Crewe leg of HS2 they thought it was such a good idea. The Northern Powerhouse Partnership, a left leaning think tank, were huge cheerleaders of HS2 (again, they didn’t have to find the money for it).
There’s also the oft missed point that HS2 was partly designed to free up existing train lines to improve and increase local services…
Stom. Totally agree with Mel’s. Also worth noting that the councillors in Stoke on Trent tried hard to get on the hs2 map, and were snooped to lose out.
HS3 was intended to sort out rail infrastructure in the north, but IIRC it was dependent on HS2 due to some shared infrastructure. When they scrapped HS2 and promised the redevelopment of local lines, some of those chosen were of very dubious value and weren’t even that popular locally.
