Dale Farm Traveller Encampment Sacked by Riot Police

[Kinyo]

Why would the local government designate an area a green belt and not actually buy it to make sure it stays wilderness? "You just bought this land, it's your property now, but YOU CAN'T DO SHIT ON IT LOL" It seems more like a cruel practical joke on would-be property owners than a useful policy.

Short answer: Its cheaper.

As mentioned earlier Dale Farm was sold for £122,000. Thats £122,000 Basildon Council doesn't have to spend.

There are VERY limited things you can do with greenbelt land. Probably get away with a conversion of your house for disability access if the land your house is on was designated green belt. I'll be honest I don't know what it is you can do but I do know its close to fuck all.

[LaCroix]

Welcome to my property problems. Half of my property is green belt.

You can use it, btw. For grazing animals, making hay and such stuff. Growing a wood on it that you can harvest the occasional tree from in a sustainable way. Some are even allowed to be in part used in agriculture (fruit trees, small crop fields). Or a nice garden. You just can't build anything on it(although there are exceptions on that, too).

They have know beforehand that it was green-belt, since any contract would have to include that, as well as the price very much indicated it. Buying it, ignoring it, and whining about it after the fact doesn't make anything right.

[Darth Tanner]

Why would the local government designate an area a green belt and not actually buy it to make sure it stays wilderness?

13% of the UK is designated green belt so that’s quite a large slice of the country for the state to buy. However being greenbelt doesn’t mean it’s simply left to wilderness, I live in the green belt south of Birmingham and there are plenty of new houses and redevelopments taking place. The difference is that they have to take place on much stricter planning regulation and on land already designated for that purpose. The rest of the land is primarily agricultural, not wilderness.

The green belt is designed to stop urban sprawl spreading out from the major cities and to stop cities merging together, not to stop all development in those areas.

Also the green belt is over 75 years old, it’s not really a surprise to the landowners anymore.

[Rogue 9]

So you think anyone should be allowed to build whatever they want without considering the character of the local area or building regulations for the safety of future buyers? If that's a strawman, how would you police buildings horiffically out of character or that are unsafe?

Building codes aren't supposed to mean "LOLZ, YOU CAN'T BUILD SHIT," but are to ensure that the building is structurally sound and able to withstand predictable stresses on it. As for character of the local area, fuck that. If there's been a castle on the hill over there since 1160, everyone must build and live in keeps in order to match? No thank you.

[Surlethe]

Short answer: Its cheaper.

As mentioned earlier Dale Farm was sold for £122,000. Thats £122,000 Basildon Council doesn't have to spend.

There are VERY limited things you can do with greenbelt land. Probably get away with a conversion of your house for disability access if the land your house is on was designated green belt. I'll be honest I don't know what it is you can do but I do know its close to fuck all.

It just seems to me like a big waste.

The green belt is designed to stop urban sprawl spreading out from the major cities and to stop cities merging together, not to stop all development in those areas.

Okay, my simple understanding of the permissible uses of land in a green belt stands corrected. Nonetheless, I still don't understand it. What externalities does it correct?

Also the green belt is over 75 years old, it’s not really a surprise to the landowners anymore.

Apparently it was a surprise to this group. In general, information can be pretty costly, especially to first time landowners.

[Darth Tanner]

Apparently it was a surprise to this group.

I'm pretty sure they knew full well they were not allowed to build on the land in the first place, they just didn't care.

It just seems to me like a big waste.

Many think it is, many economists want it made more flexible so cities can expand. However without the green belts urban sprawl would have shot out of London and the other major cities and covered much of what is left of the greenery of the South East, and the congestion is already bad enough as it is. That could be considered a good thing however if you wanted to build some cheap houses, the UK is massively behind its house building targets because of measures like the green belt. Alternatively if you already own a house you would probably support the green belt as it increases house prices by artificially limiting supply.

[Simon_Jester]

It's basically a question of whether you want there to be English countryside, or English suburbs. The current development policies are intended to ensure that English countryside exists, at the price of making it practically impossible to create English suburbs in the areas in question.

Personally, I don't have much direct stake in the matter, but I'm inclined to think there's something to the idea of making sure the countryside continues to exist in recognizable form.

[Molyneux]

Nono, the scrapyard was grandfather'd-in, it was allowed because it wasn't noticed. But it's had a change of use to this camp, and now it won't be allowed to be a scrapyard again without planning permission (which it won't get).

Planning law is never, nor will it ever be, simple.

My local council has had a few people tear down houses after they built them and attempted to hide them.

One involved someone hiding their house behind hay bails and waiting out the 10 years. Council successfully argued that the bails where structural and that the time period began to elapse upon their removal not on completion of the house.

In the case of Dale Farm I imagine that one of the stumbling blocks to a successful application was objections from the local residents. Its not just people from Dale Farm that have to live there but existing residents as well.

The best that can be done with the part of the land without planning permission is to let it grow over.

For those of us not living in the UK - what the heck is planning law, specifically? Is it just like zoning law here in the US?

[Uraniun235]

Zoning law isn't precisely the same as planning law, although planning law can shape zoning law.

For an American example, some US states and cities have "urban growth boundaries". Basically, land outside the urban growth boundary is to remain rural, whether as farmland or natural habitat or even just undeveloped land. This is intended to promote higher-density development within urban areas and to constrain sprawling suburban developments. The extreme counterexample of land use planning would be Phoenix, AZ.

The green belt is designed to stop urban sprawl spreading out from the major cities and to stop cities merging together, not to stop all development in those areas.

Okay, my simple understanding of the permissible uses of land in a green belt stands corrected. Nonetheless, I still don't understand it. What externalities does it correct?

Urban sprawl imposes in part the greater cost of providing public services (water, sewer, fire and police departments, public transit) to those living in poorly planned areas, onto those who live in higher density areas. Low initial cost, low-density, automobile-oriented suburban developments - which are typically the sort of thing that land-use planning seeks to prevent - inflict environmental and resource costs on everyone else through the encouragement of increased car ownership and use, including people who do not own cars at all. There's probably something else I'm forgetting as well. There are also non-monetary arguments, based on cultural values, for the aesthetic and recreational value of maintaining non-urban land relatively accessible to urban residents.

There are probably books on the topic of land-use planning (both in favor of and against it) which could go into far more detail than you're likely to get here.

[Rabid]

There are probably books on the topic of land-use planning (both in favor of and against it) which could go into far more detail than you're likely to get here.

Man, not only books, but also University courses, academic studies, etc... Some will gnash their teeth, but it's a science, really.

[Molyneux]

Zoning law isn't precisely the same as planning law, although planning law can shape zoning law.

For an American example, some US states and cities have "urban growth boundaries". Basically, land outside the urban growth boundary is to remain rural, whether as farmland or natural habitat or even just undeveloped land. This is intended to promote higher-density development within urban areas and to constrain sprawling suburban developments. The extreme counterexample of land use planning would be Phoenix, AZ.

The green belt is designed to stop urban sprawl spreading out from the major cities and to stop cities merging together, not to stop all development in those areas.

Okay, my simple understanding of the permissible uses of land in a green belt stands corrected. Nonetheless, I still don't understand it. What externalities does it correct?

Urban sprawl imposes in part the greater cost of providing public services (water, sewer, fire and police departments, public transit) to those living in poorly planned areas, onto those who live in higher density areas. Low initial cost, low-density, automobile-oriented suburban developments - which are typically the sort of thing that land-use planning seeks to prevent - inflict environmental and resource costs on everyone else through the encouragement of increased car ownership and use, including people who do not own cars at all. There's probably something else I'm forgetting as well. There are also non-monetary arguments, based on cultural values, for the aesthetic and recreational value of maintaining non-urban land relatively accessible to urban residents.

There are probably books on the topic of land-use planning (both in favor of and against it) which could go into far more detail than you're likely to get here.

Cool, thank you very much for the info.

[El Moose Monstero]

So you think anyone should be allowed to build whatever they want without considering the character of the local area or building regulations for the safety of future buyers? If that's a strawman, how would you police buildings horiffically out of character or that are unsafe?

Building codes aren't supposed to mean "LOLZ, YOU CAN'T BUILD SHIT," but are to ensure that the building is structurally sound and able to withstand predictable stresses on it. As for character of the local area, fuck that. If there's been a castle on the hill over there since 1160, everyone must build and live in keeps in order to match? No thank you.

Yes, because Britain is entirely comprised of castles rather than a wealth of different architure from 1750 to present, some of which is actually worth preserving rather than bulldozing. Not all of it is protected with the same vigour; some areas are strictly protected, in others, the local areas is merely one of many considerations to applications for new buildings or modifications to existing buildings.

Planning permissions aren't just there so that the filthy gub'ment can tell you how to live. They're there to consider the effects of what someone wants to build on the surrounding area and community. This includes shops and businesses, btw, not just domestic buildings. Fast food restaurants that buy listed buildings, for example, are required to maintain the frontage in keeping with the original style of that building at much as possible. Why should the tourism appeal of shops or restaurants in a historic street be compromised by someone over the road putting up garish neon lights or a giant McDonalds logo?

Similarly, should your house value suffer because your next door neighbour builds an eyesore of an extension? What about if someone wants to build a giant block of flats or, in the case of Newcastle, a 50 story casino / penthouse complex that would block out all sunlight to many backyards? Should you have to wait until the building is built or modifiaction made to bring some sort of civil prosecution? Or would it be better if there was a way that this sort of thing could be considered before anyone starts building?

Like, for example, a planning authority reviewing and recommending modifications to buildings designs according to any *legitimate* concerns of neighbours or impacts on the wider community.

I'm sure there are cases when planning regulations are enforced with too much zeal, or where people with good intentions are being obstructed, but I'd also argue that planning regulations do genuine good which doesn't get reported.

P.S. Though I'm not an expert, building regs here also encompass electrics, heating, insulation etc, ensuring compliance with current EU or UK legislation.

[Starglider]

Yes, because Britain is entirely comprised of castles rather than a wealth of different architure from 1750 to present, some of which is actually worth preserving rather than bulldozing.

Irrelevant, listing of buildings for preservation relies on entirely different laws and governing body.

Planning permissions aren't just there so that the filthy gub'ment can tell you how to live.

No, actually they are. Planning officials in the UK are drunk with power and truly believe that only buildings that fit their whims should be build. The basic rights to use land you own or construct a shelter for your family, present throughout human history, mean nothing to them. It really is just about what the local government wants, which is of course open to change through lobbying and outright bribery. It is probably the most communist part of UK government.

They're there to consider the effects of what someone wants to build on the surrounding area and community. This includes shops and businesses, btw, not just domestic buildings. Fast food restaurants that buy listed buildings, for example, are required to maintain the frontage in keeping with the original style of that building at much as possible. Why should the tourism appeal of shops or restaurants in a historic street be compromised by someone over the road putting up garish neon lights or a giant McDonalds logo?

Of course an individual shopholder won't be allowed to do anything at all. A big chain company will get away with a lot if they can fund professionals to harass the planners full time until they give in.

Similarly, should your house value suffer because your next door neighbour builds an eyesore of an extension?

Planning officers have almost no appreciation for aesthetic value and are very poor at exactly this. Their criteria are 'is it boring and generic, if yes, then maybe if we feel particularly permissive today we might allow it'. Quality of detail is never considered.

What about if someone wants to build a giant block of flats or, in the case of Newcastle, a 50 story casino / penthouse complex that would block out all sunlight to many backyards? Should you have to wait until the building is built or modifiaction made to bring some sort of civil prosecution? Or would it be better if there was a way that this sort of thing could be considered before anyone starts building?

Maybe planning reform is possible, in the hypothetical situation that a central government was elected that actually had this as a priority. In a choice between keeping the existing system and firing the lot of them, I would immediately and repeatedly stab the 'sack all of the worthless petty obstructive parasites' button. The economic benefits of affordable housing, greater commercial development and more construction activity plus the money saved by not paying all of those idiots plus all the professional time associated with getting through the process far, far outweight the negligible benefits of their supposed attempts to protect 'area character'.

I'm sure there are cases when planning regulations are enforced with too much zeal

This single case is enough to condemn the system. Planners are destroying people's homes for no reason (no visible eyesore or detriment to surrounding area), spending tens of millions of pounds of public money to do it (that would be vastly better spent on development, homes and jobs), and worst of all they are not even making the slightest gesture towards suggesting where these people can live in peace. They claim there is nowhere in their entire region that can be a suitable site. Tempting as it is I would not go quite so far as to advocate burning down the homes of the planning officers involved, after all they may be subhuman communoids but they do have families. But they should definitely be fired and barred from ever working in the public sector again.

[Uraniun235]

No, actually they are. Planning officials in the UK are drunk with power and truly believe that only buildings that fit their whims should be build. The basic rights to use land you own or construct a shelter for your family, present throughout human history, mean nothing to them. It really is just about what the local government wants, which is of course open to change through lobbying and outright bribery. It is probably the most communist part of UK government.

Dude I'm pretty sure if we were face-to-face I'd be wiping your spittle off my face. Did you get burned on a land deal or something?