Comments for en-gb 30 Sat 30 May 2015 04:57:12 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at David Windsor Well I'd rather this than leave it to local councils , where I think there are just too many people simply not up to making a decision that would mark their communities for ever. But I agree with those that say that its impossible to get 90% of any large group to vote the same way.I'm all for preserving the character of our rural communities, though I'd like to point out that once the pub, post office and village store have gone there may not be a lot of character left. But yet again where's the joined-up thinking? Its all very well to permit the blocking of developments by current residents, but given that population forecasts show significant growth in the next couple of decades, where are these people going to live? Its much easier to allow developments to be blocked if you have firm plans to limit immigration and so stop population growth. Maybe if rural communities are to get this power in reality, they're first going to have to persuade our government to explain to the EU that the UK will not in future be allowing unlimited immigration from within the Community, or indeed from outside it. Tue 17 Aug 2010 23:57:11 GMT+1 aristotles23 A local referendum result is only as good as the information available to the voters, what this idea does is effectively kill-off the ability of rural areas to encourage contractors to build in their area, if , as seems likely, the contractors are scared off by any precedent of delayed projects, which would seem inevitable considering the 90% approval criteria. This, in turn, will allow government to claim that democracy is being served when it most definitely is not. If we allow majority rule, its not necessarily democratic, but could often be described as "mob-rule".This is why we evolved town and city councils, to consult with, not only the public, but also, contractors, geologists, ecologists,surveyors, lawyers, utility infrastructure providers and local businesses. To pretend that this is some kind of devolution of power is disingenuous as it will polarise local opinion and/or create little fiefdoms for local committee groups with all the usual cliques, nepotism, corruption and disputes associated with such a "Gauleiter" type of system. Post-modern feudalism is what is being proposed by the ConDems, and we should reject it utterly. This "Big Society", is a Big Con, its actually the blatant abdication of full service provision by Central (and therefore by default, local) Government. Where are local budgets to come from, how will they be delivered, and to whom ? Who will administrate (do the books etc.)? Where do the private contractors fit in ? The private sector is rubbing its avaricious hands with glee at the thought of all the "contracts" that it will be "awarded" in the areas where all WILL agree to SOME construction in the end, after possibly years of disagreement and delay. It can also look forward to projects that it would be engaged in anyway, where the money and agreement are foregone conclusions. Tue 17 Aug 2010 23:20:46 GMT+1 Sat_tire This post has been Removed Tue 17 Aug 2010 20:02:10 GMT+1 cynic555 You can't get 90% of the people to agree on much of anything - law pretty much insures that nothing is going to get done. Perhaps this is the intent? Tue 17 Aug 2010 18:46:00 GMT+1 Dr Bob Matthews Welocome to the new "nimbys" charter. I live here, I bought my house and I'm not having anyone else living here. Usually incomers and weekenders who protest at rural life such as cocks crowing, smelly pigs, church bells etc. They don't support the local shop (if there is one) they buy all their food from the supermarket and bring it with them. These are the people with mobile phones for all the family but object about mobile phone masts. If people in the past where not allowed to build houses there would'nt be any villages. These people are the cause of inflated house prices in villages and in time will destroy village life as nobody from the original village population will be able to afford the house prices.This is another example of crass stupidity on the part of Dave and his wimp lib pal who has mad such an impact on life that I can't remember his name. The sooner people see through this mut and jeff government the better. Tue 17 Aug 2010 17:12:14 GMT+1 5XX No matter who decides, the decision will favour those who can make money out of it. Overpopulation and quality of life won't enter the discussion. If it did, no new houses would be built anywhere. Tue 17 Aug 2010 16:49:52 GMT+1 LE Mental If one is going to destroy the countryside with more housing then I suggest everyone follow Prince Charles's Poundbury Estate and slot them in nicely with dignity and aestheticism. No little housing boxes and big shopping boxes we just don't need them.Let's keep the village community in place. If we build, then follow the excellent model set by Prince Charles. It's absolutely charming, like the Prince's work. Tue 17 Aug 2010 16:41:53 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers "288. At 4:14pm on 17 Aug 2010, lacplesis37 wrote:A nimby's charter - need I say more"But while people's views have been totally overridden we have new housing creating flooding problems for existing properties. What is fair about that? Tue 17 Aug 2010 16:10:06 GMT+1 Chris #2 I guess you don't own much of anything. It will be paid for by those presenting a planning application presumably - and even if it did involve a bit of taxpayers money I'd rather see it used defending the rights of those who have actually worked and achieved something.At the moment these developments are a joke - in our village someone bought the local pub, knocked it down and built flats. This is totally against planning policy and is clearly a case of greased palms. I woke up to an extension being built that overlooks what was a private garden. I couldn't even object because he claimed to have been "finishing" something he started in 1963!This is why the residents must have the final say - everyone else has an interest at making money at the expense of the environment including greedy builders who turn everything into rabbit hutches and ruin peoples' quality of life. Research shows that levels of aggression increase as our living space becomes more compressed.Glad to finally see a government doing something about it. Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:54:23 GMT+1 juliet50 This would work only if the people voting are in their main residence. Second home owners should not get a vote. I live in Cornwall and many rural villages have a lot of second home owners who may not welcome any development due to worries about house values and spoiling quiet village life. Any village who does not have some affordable housing will die though as younger families have to move away. Having said that my two daughters have had to move away to find work as another problem in rural communities is lack of jobs. Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:48:26 GMT+1 justin de shed 272. At 1:23pm on 17 Aug 2010, lovelyonthewater wrote:"the government's plans would enable villagers to form local housing trusts and build homes without seeking council planning permission, subject to the referendum results."Is this for real? So people with no professional idea about flooding issues, environmental designations, traffic implications, TPOs, bats can build without planning permission because a local who happens to be popular and buys everyone a pint wants a new house?_______________________________________________I hope not this exactly what we don't want, but it is at present controlled by local parish councillors who themselves are totally hapless and inept.Unless you appeal the CC will usually side with the Parish, and they are asked first. The system is pathetic, it may have been ok in the middle ages but not now. How many people know how to, or have the time or patience to go through an appeal you have to appear in person and present your case. Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:48:25 GMT+1 JohnH Lets start with the reason for the 'shortage' of housing in the 'countryside'.First, homes are expensive because they are bought by rich urban people as holiday/retirement homes. These people see the property as an investment. They will certainly not want any further development of ANY type of housing.Second, local people who would be housed in cheap 'social' housing would at the earliest opportunity buy the property under 'right to buy' and cash in when they need the money, selling their house to the urbanites above.I am not a country person, nor would I describe myself as a city dwellor. I am sick to death of the 'countryside' movement protraying their beloved lost causes as some sort of modern day 'victim'.Second homes were sold to city people by country folk, very few are actually built for townies.Can we please stop this buscuit-tin-lid view of the countryside. Most of it is miles and miles of nothing at all, MiAMiNAA.If we need more housing then DO IT. Buy up all the redundent, bankrupt farming land, currently producing nothing that we cannot buy cheaper elsewhere. Then build new communities, they do not have to be huge spralls. If we need the housing then build it, if it is not being built at the moment it is either the land is too expensive or not available.So make land available, and cheap, and then we can forget about it. Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:38:39 GMT+1 lacplesis37 A nimby's charter - need I say more Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:14:59 GMT+1 Mustafa Yorumcu There are very very very few opinions that will enjoy support from 9 out of 10 people. Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:09:07 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers This particular HYS demonstrates why we need a reply button. In pasting someone else's post and commenting beneath it, not only has their original post been removed, but so has mine. Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:04:38 GMT+1 Mustafa Yorumcu 278. At 2:19pm on 17 Aug 2010, justin de shed wrote:11. At 11:33am on 16 Aug 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:No more building on our green countryside, period. If we need to build houses, knock down the existing inner city slums, and build them there.________________________________________Exactly, and put people back into a community that has the facilities to accomodate them. Not into an area where the nearest decently priced supermarket is 10-20 miles away.---Absolutely. Inner city slums are full of ancient two-story council housing that hardly stands. Replace them with well-designed, well-maintained high towers with amenities/schools/health centres/parking at the same site. Having done this, grab the trouble families and throw them in the country side. Let them go hunter-gatherer. Council housing should be for law-abiding citizens only. Tue 17 Aug 2010 15:02:09 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers "275. At 2:00pm on 17 Aug 2010, Phillip of England wrote:"My responses to you seem to have caused offence and have been removed, although the same comments in reverse do not appear to cause offence.What I wanted to say was:From urban Greater London - I think you get more sympathy than you realise from the cities when people complain about cocks crowing, or the peal of bells as they move nextdoor to an ancient church. Or indeed when we see the countryside being devastated.I do have immediate family who moved to a rural location some years back. Seem to have settled extremely well.Please don't generalise.It might be worth remembering that within living memory much of Greater London was countryside. If you had found yourself in such a situation it sounds as if you might have chosen to move as well... Tue 17 Aug 2010 14:31:00 GMT+1 Phillip of England 280. At 2:47pm on 17 Aug 2010, Dan_Dover wrote:276. At 2:03pm on 17 Aug 2010, Phillip of England wrote:272. At 1:23pm on 17 Aug 2010, lovelyonthewater wrote:And why do people in rural areas get preferential treatment and over those in urban areas?-------------------------------------------------------------------------Because they are less likely to make a hash of it, as you have done in your cities, with failed multiculturalism, gang warfare, drugs and all the trimmings of a society mired in its own filth. People from more rural idles, tend to be a little more thoughtful than those who dwell within the urban sprawl.Does that answer your question? I do hope so… -----------------------------------------------------------Why, then, has the last 200 or so years of world social history been dominated by the exodus of country folk to towns?-------------------------------------------------------------------------Because greedy and selfish industrialists and capitalists have created and economic environment where those working to provide the food YOU eat are underpaid and under valued for the hard work, blood, sweat and toil they have put into making sure YOU have food on YOUR table. Even today funds that rightly should go to farmers and those producing YOUR food are diverted away to stave off the powder keg of misery and bitterness that exists within the inner cities with community centres and other such projects. Tue 17 Aug 2010 14:28:31 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers This post has been Removed Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:57:51 GMT+1 europhile I doubt if it makes the slightest bit of difference. Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:55:16 GMT+1 Dan_Dover 276. At 2:03pm on 17 Aug 2010, Phillip of England wrote:272. At 1:23pm on 17 Aug 2010, lovelyonthewater wrote:And why do people in rural areas get preferential treatment and over those in urban areas?-------------------------------------------------------------------------Because they are less likely to make a hash of it, as you have done in your cities, with failed multiculturalism, gang warfare, drugs and all the trimmings of a society mired in its own filth. People from more rural idles, tend to be a little more thoughtful than those who dwell within the urban sprawl.Does that answer your question? I do hope so… -----------------------------------------------------------Why, then, has the last 200 or so years of world social history been dominated by the exodus of country folk to towns? Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:47:49 GMT+1 Dan_Dover #241. At 07:44am on 17 Aug 2010, Lewis Fitzroy wrote:"This P.R. stunt would help many more young familys get a foot on the property ladder in most citys, it could stop the buy to let landlords buying up all the cheaper property {starter homes'} But this will never happen because many M.P,s and others' are buy to let landlords. This wont' happen in the country"The fact that so many (probably almost all) of our MPs have investment properties is one of the biggests stitch-ups around. There are parliamentary rules stating that if an MP is, say, on the board of a cigarette company and they sit on a Dept of Health committee then they should declare a conflict of interest. Yet somehow buy-to-let doesn't seem to count as a private business activity. I suspect this corruption is hidden because most of the media are playing the property game themselves. Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:44:49 GMT+1 justin de shed 11. At 11:33am on 16 Aug 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:No more building on our green countryside, period. If we need to build houses, knock down the existing inner city slums, and build them there.________________________________________Exactly, and put people back into a community that has the facilities to accomodate them. Not into an area where the nearest decently priced supermarket is 10-20 miles away. Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:19:27 GMT+1 justin de shed Many of these cases where PP is given for houses for locals, don't go to locals at all.They are attempting this kind of development all over the SE at present in small villages that quite definately do not have the facilities, there are now no bus services, no doctors or dentists, no pavements, no post offices, and narrow increasingly dangerous roads. The Council have in the past given PP for Commercial development in my area in low wage industries requiring heavy vehicles to move produce along roads that are just far too narrow. You end up with dirty great potholes the council take no responsibility for, leaking water mains and filth everywhere.Giving the indiginous locals a veto is the best thing since curly chips. Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:09:57 GMT+1 Phillip of England 272. At 1:23pm on 17 Aug 2010, lovelyonthewater wrote:And why do people in rural areas get preferential treatment and over those in urban areas?-------------------------------------------------------------------------Because they are less likely to make a hash of it, as you have done in your cities, with failed multiculturalism, gang warfare, drugs and all the trimmings of a society mired in its own filth. People from more rural idles, tend to be a little more thoughtful than those who dwell within the urban sprawl.Does that answer your question? I do hope so… Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:03:58 GMT+1 Phillip of England 267. At 12:50pm on 17 Aug 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:"249. At 09:56am on 17 Aug 2010, Phillip of England wrote:If it truly gives control to those who live in the rural areas and puts a stop to the spread of the "townies" and the filth from the inner cities, then it can only be a good thing. Coming from rural Somerset, there is nothing that turns the stomach more than the sight of disrespectful Neanderthal inner city types foisting their disgusting lifestyles on those who live in the country. The fewer homes built in the rural areas the better. It’s a unique way of life and does not require input or dilution from those who reside in the squalor of the cities."Some of these "townies" appear to be people who have moved away from rural areas not just because they couldn't afford to buy a house/there was no work - they discovered they could earn considerably more in the cities.As we're overcrowded enough as it is - can we send them packing back to you? We don't want more houses built up here either.-------------------------------------------------------------------------I think I was a tad grumpy when i wrote that this morning and the issue you raise of living in rural areas and not being able to afford to buy a property there is something most people in rural areas can indeed relate to. Obviously if you are from the rural areas, it makes sense if you wish to return there, that you should be able to do so. I would however raise concerns and objections to life long city dwellers heading out for the country life. We have several families who have moved from the city, setting up home near to where we are and they have been nothing but a royal pain in the backside. Failing to comprehend the differing subtleties of dealing with rural life and those from the rural communities of often the first mistake. We generally don't react well to the gung-ho mentality and snobbery that comes with the city dwellers. If that’s going to be your attitude when moving here, you would be better off staying where you are. Tue 17 Aug 2010 13:00:18 GMT+1 LancashireLass I have read for some while now about 'affordable housing' - just how is that defined. If you start at the bottom end, lots of houses are affordable. However if you want to start with a 4 bed detached, and run 2 cars, holidays abroad, large TV,s and every gadget known to man, then it is probable unaffordable. Back in the 1970's from my £10 wk wage (husband to be on £20) we managed to save enough for a 10% deposit, legal fees etc. But then we started at the bottom.So -if you factor this information into the building decisions that people will be allowed to vote on the decision will be easy. If the proposed site has lots of small terraced 2 bed homes, then they will be affordable. It they are 4 - 5 bed detached they are not. Tue 17 Aug 2010 12:48:43 GMT+1 justin de shed 6. At 11:25am on 16 Aug 2010, ticktickticktickboom wrote:You wont get 90% of any village agreeing to anything of any kind, let alone the building of, say, a social housing estate on their doorstep. How ridiculous.__________________________________Its 80 not 90% and thats why it's such a brilliant idea, there will be no more steamrollering over public opinion by heavy handed councils. I'm all for it.I am currently in dispute with Tun Wells CC over their granting of PP.They empoloyed a third party contractor/agent for a supposed expert opinion, and all I can say is that it was an total waste of taxpayers money.He could'nt tell the difference between decideous and non-decideous trees, and his logic was that if there was already PP for one development then it was ok to have another.Oh he had the gift of the gab alright, highly articulate, but the genral intellect of a pidgeon. This has to be one of the stupidest people ever employed by anyone anywhere on the planet. Tunbridge Wells are a disgrace and a prime example of exactly what we do not want ruling our lives. Tue 17 Aug 2010 12:47:37 GMT+1 lovelyonthewater "the government's plans would enable villagers to form local housing trusts and build homes without seeking council planning permission, subject to the referendum results."Is this for real? So people with no professional idea about flooding issues, environmental designations, traffic implications, TPOs, bats can build without planning permission because a local who happens to be popular and buys everyone a pint wants a new house?This isn't going to help young families get a home, because NIMBYs wouldn't want young people with families, they'd want quiet retired people who maintain the status quo.And why do people in rural areas get preferential treatment and over those in urban areas? Tue 17 Aug 2010 12:23:28 GMT+1 rustle This post has been Removed Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:56:51 GMT+1 Kadazan Lets build more flats then we can knock 'em all down again in 40 years time as eyesores, they were cheap and affordable but have we moved on, I don't think so! That's a non-starter. As a nation, we are too fond of waiting for others to take the initiative or to apply some lateral thinking to do something about the lack of cheap housing when, by relaxing some of our quaint building regulations and land control, the problem could be overcome. In Asia for example, many build their own dwellings that eventually become shanty towns, we don't want that but let people use their intelligence and imagination without being hamstrung with local bye-laws and regulation to build on designated land without nitpickers. One example of a temporary home are disused sea containers that are easily converted into a home, they cost about £5k upwards to buy (much cheaper than caravans and way cheaper than your average family saloon), all you need is a friendly local authority to designate land and to organise utilities, do your own conversion as and when it can be afforded. Job done at least until something else comes along. Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:54:24 GMT+1 Martin Swift This must mean that seeking Planning Permission will go out of the window if groups can simply hold referendums on housing...Tory MP's will not only be able to claim expenses on Moats but not have to gain permission for it to be there in the first place...and lets not forget the dovecotes as well...No! Simply a Stupid Idea that at present seems to be coming out of this Coalition...get back to sorting the country's housing out and lets have all this empty housing put into use and leave illogical ideas alone... Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:54:16 GMT+1 SSnotbanned I'd imagine on a 'good day' the overwhelming support for the death sentence would be referendum passed.I therefore look forward to my local hill proving to be a suitable position for the gallows. Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:51:51 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers This post has been Removed Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:50:54 GMT+1 SSnotbanned I'm thinking of putting a couple of new shrubs in before the winter. Now if only I could have a local referendum decision before October... Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:46:01 GMT+1 SSnotbanned Only as good numerically, as the people voting. The collective mass ((and their madness*(''and good/single people are s****ed. In the Second Dark Age.''.)).Thing is, if say, Immanual Kant,wise man, or the wisest planning official that ever lived, voted, wouldn't they alone know what to do ??Is planning applications and their refusal/passing, about the quality of the planning, and decision-taking, or a democratic vote??Isn't it true that those applications, that are refused, are given reasons/advice on changes in the planning application, that could change the decision ?Won't this be lost if it's a straight-forward vote ???[*'One Better Day'+ 'The Soot Song''Big Yellow Taxi''The Second Dark Age'][[nobody has confidence,recall the mass,...the foolocracy remains]] Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:43:37 GMT+1 This is a colleague announcement 252. At 10:35am on 17 Aug 2010, Nick wrote:"...Communal gardens could be provided for all, which may help foster a more open community spirit"+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Ah if only Nick. The communal space at the rear of the group of homes, one of which I own, is protected as such by ancient covenants etc. This has not stopped the others fencing off little plots adjacent to their own properties into tiny, pitiful little yards. They'd much rather that than a spacious communal area. I remember a song "My pink half of the drainpipe"... Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:41:26 GMT+1 BaldLea Will local referendums on new housing be good for rural areas?The NIMBYs and rich folk will be able to keep the rest of us in our cramped urban hovels.Same old Tories. Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:38:08 GMT+1 rustle I agree with astoundingStephen about the NIMBY's and I believe, coming from a rural background, that you will be most likely to find them on parish councils! However, central planning obviously won't solve the problem either as it only works on the basis of statistics. What then? Is it too much to ask that the needs of rural areas and the national housing requirement be considered together and discussed at local, regional and national levels? That, of course, would demand intelligence in place of the emotional, romantic and illusory approach hitherto applied! Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:32:45 GMT+1 Shepherd As with most subjects this is complex and contentious. Originally from Cornwall, I have plenty of experience of holiday homes and the arguments surrounding them. It is difficult to justify the 'incomers' being allowed to prevent development lest it affect their investment. But it is usually the case, at least initially, that a local person has sold their home at prices local people are either unwilling or unable to pay - and we can't easily stop that! Possibly we should have kept more council owned properties and invested more in that area.Then there's the Bureaucracy; it beggars belief that it is thought that we could energise voters to 'have their say' over planning applications when they hardly vote at local elections in any meaningful numbers. And that's ignoring the various pressure groups and lobbyists who seem to wield undue influence and affect planning decisions.We do need to preserve local communities complete with schools, shops and post offices (and even pubs). Small scale developments are better than huge swathes of countryside under concrete. But it is not straightforward and needs to be better thought through. And there is not, in my opinion, a single simple solution so let's not kid ourselves that there is! Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:26:28 GMT+1 Daisy Chained Planning and development are already democratically managed by the local authority, with full consultation of locally affected residents as appropriate. The final arbiter is the Secretary of State.The problem remains one of affordable housing where it is needed, i.e. areas of high housing or rental cost, so that people may own or rent property commensurate with their earnings. This ploy by the Tories is simply another red herring. Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:21:37 GMT+1 Trying2beAReaslist One of the side conversations here is affordable housing. I still question what affordable houses are and whether in reality such a concept is really valid. House prices are determined by the area more than the house itself.In rural areas, particularly desirable rural areas, there is no such thing as a cheap house. The only way to control house prices is to control demand. Demand control measure are something that were introduced in Banff in Canada I believe (Banff is stunning by the way). To buy a property in Banff (I think I'm correct here) you have to work in Banff. So are we not saying then that to buy one of these new "affordable rural properties" that you have to work in the town / village. Otherwise affordable houses only exist in less desirable areas, i.e. run down areas, busy inner city areas etc.But will developers be interested in building such low margin properties, possibly not. Or is the new housing market so bad now that a small profit sale is better than no sale at all.Such controlling measures do work, it just depends on whether this is something that we are looking to achieve or not. The Rural Coalition are interested in keeping local working communities alive, well this is one way to achieve this.I think it's important though that we decide what we are really trying to achieve before reaching any conclusions. I think affordable housing, and affordable housing in more expensive and desirable areas, are two separate issues that are achieved in different ways.I'm not making any conclusions myself here, I'm just sharing what I know. Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:13:05 GMT+1 mintman60 This is just another soundbite to please their daily mail reading supporters and to cover up the real issue of why some can have several houses whilst other hard working families cannot afford one.I was recently in Cornwall and was shocked by the houses in the nice coastal areas obviously taken by the very wealthy, look at the cars hear the accents then the locals forced into large council estates in the larger towns they will not be alloud back by those who have taken over the villages and probably have another home, as these people will wish to keep their village as it is now. Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:06:23 GMT+1 Robin Yes it will cause controversy but it is an argument that needs to be made. It is not good people saying they want to preserve community when in fact they really want live in isolation. Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:05:04 GMT+1 One in a million The real problem in my mind is people buying second homes and driving prices up as a result, leaving local people unable to stay in their own village. Forget affordable housing - just tax the hell out of second homes? (that would go down well with the rich political types!) Tue 17 Aug 2010 10:42:09 GMT+1 Andrew Lye Planning should be done within the confines of agreed local plans, otherwise you could get odd decisions made locally.Planning has to be done with care as once permitted, you have to live with the new buildings.Maybe local plans need more flexibility, based on the parish/community Council and the District/County Council that deals with planning. Tue 17 Aug 2010 10:35:18 GMT+1 astoundingStephen I can't see this working, but it will expose the hypocrisy of the NIMBY village dwellers. They complain about high house prices, but won't let new houses be built. They complain about falling provision of services, but won't let new blood move in, which would use those services. They complain when the village school closes, but sell up to second home owners, not new families. They complain about rural unemployment, but won't allow commercial development. They complain about the small proportion of immigrants who come to work in their villages, but won't take up hard work or the wages that are offered. Tue 17 Aug 2010 10:31:35 GMT+1 Jill Elson Here in East Devon we have many second homes and properties are too expensive for local people in the low wage economy of the South West. Our villages need new homes that are afforable to local people especailly younger people. We need to keep our villaes alive and not to decline. We have lost village schools, post offices, local pubs and shops. they are becoming very elderly and it will be expensive for statutory organisations to provide care in the community. Many people who have moved into our local villages wish to preserve as it was rather than conserve them. Many objections are received when it is proposed to build any houses even just one!!! No homes will be built if we allow a local vote with a necessity to achieve 90% in favour of building. The reason house prices are so high is that not enough homes have been built in the last 13 years. We need more homes as the population increases, divorces, more single people etc. Tue 17 Aug 2010 09:59:09 GMT+1 Nick It’s been mentioned in a combination of posts that it’s not just the case of building more houses but the type of houses that are built as well. Why should we be living in drab, concrete stained houses, consumed by tarmacadam roads? Why not build simple good village centric homes from wood and hi-tech materials that could blend into the local environment? Communal gardens could be provided for all, which may help foster a more open community spirit. Solar, wind and rainwater collection could help reduce our carbon footprint and provide lower utility bills. A personal public underground (or mono-rail) transportation system would rid us of congested and needless roads. Can’t be done? Too expensive? That’s because we would rather spend the cash on bailing out the banks. Our past and present government doesn’t have the imagination or the guts to bring in new laws to make it happen. Tue 17 Aug 2010 09:35:18 GMT+1 Matt I live in a small rural village 10 minutes away from Milton Keynes, and I am shocked at the number of houses being built on the rural areas. Take a quick drive through Milton Keynes and you will see plenty of brown field sites which could have been used for development. They are described as "town houses" and I dread to think what they will look like in 5 years time once the grey paint has started flaking off. Tue 17 Aug 2010 09:32:58 GMT+1 Jonathan I think the Government needs to look seriously at the housing problem. There is no point in seeking a vote of 90% of local people, when a high proportion of people won't be bothered to vote.There are various things that the Government must consider.1. If the long-term unemployed, who have no intention of working, were moved out of big cities, this would free up a lot of housing.2. The Government should attach notices to empty properties and give contact details to the owners. If there is no response after a few months, the Government should take over the properties and make them available to homeless working people.3. People who buy second homes should face a 40% tax on the purchase and people who make a profit on selling their homes should be taxed 40% on the profit - this could replace inheritance tax. 4. Council tenants should be treated the same way as leasholders and private tenants. They should be checked every five years and high wage earners and other well off people should leave the properties to enable low paid workers to occupy them. Local and central government should be able to obtain details of people who win many thousands of pounds through gambling and tax them accordingly. It is unfair for millionaires to be allowed to stay in council property and pay a subsidised rent or no rent at all.5. The obsession of governments and the media with increases in house prices has been a major factor in the current problem of many people being unable to buy or rent homes. 6. All available homes and other buildings should be used for homes before any building occurs on green spaces. Tue 17 Aug 2010 09:10:14 GMT+1 Phillip of England This post has been Removed Tue 17 Aug 2010 08:56:05 GMT+1 Muddy Waters the 2nd 123. At 3:37pm on 16 Aug 2010, steve wrote:Councils should provide (as they used to)council homes, but instead of just rented they should be allocated to families on a rent to buy basis.------------------The reason why we have no council housing stock left is because councils have effectively being doing precisely this for the last 30 Years.It would make the situation even worse not better.-------------------------------------------------------------------------That's because when councils sold they never replaced. My idea would be a stepping stone, local people would be allocated a house whether they wanted to buy or not, because there would be a mix hopefully, the ghetto's you see on council estates wouldn't develop. Councils and corporations used to provide houses in times when the population en masse were very poor, so why can't councils provide necessary housing now that we are, as a nation, a lot richer. Answer - over the last ten to fifteen years council tax has been rising at more than twice the cost of inflation but standards of council provision and care has plummeted why? Answer - the big chiefs in councils and their hanger-ons have been feathering their own nests, look at their salaries now compared with fifteen years ago, huge increases and they will persecute the poor who have difficulty paying their council tax. It's high time councils were sorted out, strip out the overpaid underworked council chiefs, put people in place that care about their community then maybe, a proper housing policy can be set up instead of wasting money on the big chiefs over inflated salaries and bonuses and their pet prestige projects. Tue 17 Aug 2010 08:48:26 GMT+1 General_Jack_Ripper righteoussasquatch wrote:If we do not defend our countryside from the developers how will there be enough food to feed the people in their new homes?The UK hasn't been self sufficient for hundreds of years, even at the height of WWII we were relying on food being imported from the Empire and very strict rationing in order to keep everyone fed and that was at a time when our population was much lower than it currently is.If you're going to limit development to a level where the UK becomes self sufficient in food then you're going to have to find a way to get rid of over half of the population.You'll also find that a great deal of land in the green belt is not agricultural and therefore is not used to produce food for human consumption, there's a huge area of green belt around here that is used to produce turf for garden centres and an even greater area of land that is taken up by golf courses. Developing land such as this would have no impact on the amount of food we can produce. Tue 17 Aug 2010 08:38:00 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers "158. At 4:45pm on 16 Aug 2010, Chris wrote:Local people should always have a say in measures that directly affect them. Sadly, rural communities have been decimated by out-of-towners who buy up all available desirable properties in rural communities, then live in them for 5 weeks of the year, leaving next generation villagers with nowhere to go. This is one of the areas that must be addressed. Wealthy Londoners are killing village life. There is no doubt that government cutbacks are going to hit rural communities hard, as local council funding is heavily reduced. It is time for some radical thinking."Due to much planning mismanagement, you may find some of these Londoners had their lives destroyed long before the village lives became affected. And it's too late for them to have a say.I do agree that at a time when we apparently have a housing shortage to have properties standing empty for much of the year is not on. Tue 17 Aug 2010 07:59:14 GMT+1 icewombat "149. At 4:18pm on 16 Aug 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:BTW since my post, have 'googled' timber framed low energy homes available from Germany, most Scandinavian countries who are decades ahead of the UK?Order multiple designs options for multiple occupancy to blend discretely within any location, including rural. Order these designs from these companies and they will build, transport to UK and construct with their own fully qualified engineers.These homes are so advanced - are we in the UK missing a trick, believing only in brick????"Its well known that we build the lowest quality properties with the cheapest materials in northan europe.The general rule in the UK is 30% of the cost is the land, 30% cost is the building (of which 60% is labour costs and 40% materials cost) and the remainig value is the finance and profit.So a 300k prperrty will have cost approx 100k to build and contain approx 40k of building materals Tue 17 Aug 2010 07:53:55 GMT+1 anotherPen There are plenty of cheaper houses in rural areas - its just that they're bought as holiday homes. Taxing second homes anually at 10% of their value will solve the problem. Tue 17 Aug 2010 07:25:38 GMT+1 This is a colleague announcement 224. At 10:33pm on 16 Aug 2010, Peter Bridgemont wrote:"... Many French towns and villages have kept their picturesque appearance and character because new housing has to blend in or directly copy the traditional styles, we should be doing this too."++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I agree Peter but the word "should" will not make it happen. There have to be laws passed to make it compulsory. That means MPs have to propose those laws and get them through Parliament. They are not going to spend time talking to the public on this issue when the people say they have more pressing concerns such as being nasty to foreigners.It would take a generation or so to begin to transform the built environment in the UK. However, given the life of modern housing built with (legal in the UK) phoney materials (cement "slates", "bricks" and "stone", mdf etc.) is only rated at about 25 years at least that's in our favour. Tue 17 Aug 2010 07:05:47 GMT+1 Ralph124C41plus How about putting this idea to a national referendum, with a 90% majority required to carry it through? Tue 17 Aug 2010 06:59:02 GMT+1 Lewis Fitzroy "This P.R. stunt would help many more young familys get a foot on the property ladder in most citys, it could stop the buy to let landlords buying up all the cheaper property {starter homes'} But this will never happen because many M.P,s and others' are buy to let landlords. This wont' happen in the country Tue 17 Aug 2010 06:44:40 GMT+1 solomondogs A referendum may well sound like a bright idea to all those townies who have invaded these rural areas and want to turn them into 'London in the sticks', but it is a very bad idea from the point of view of true countrymen and women, there are not enough of us left to make a difference to the voting, unless of course the referendum is restricted to say those who have lived, permenantly, and earn their living from or in the surrounding area, these are the only people any questions should be aimed at.The problem with that of course is that those who want to concrete over everything wouldn't get the answer they want.Mumsie 54, comment 237, you've hit the nail right on the head, the exact same problem exists in Devon, something has got to give. Tue 17 Aug 2010 06:05:14 GMT+1 chrislabiff Got to lower the population. Tue 17 Aug 2010 05:51:56 GMT+1 Peter Dewsnap No, stay out of the countryside, too much damage has been done already. By the way, BBC, the plural of referendum is referenda. Your command of the English language is becoming as bad as the American's.Peter D South Carolina Tue 17 Aug 2010 03:44:20 GMT+1 mumsie54 I too live in a Cornish village. About 70% (or more) of homes are owned by relatively wealthy Londoners - people who work 'in the city' etc. Locals now live mostly in privately rented homes, and local jobs - like most in Cornwall- are minimum wage. In winter the village is like a ghost town as the holiday and second homes are empty. There used to be a couple of butchers shops, greengrocers,banks etc. but of course these went out of business as the part timers moved in (they tend to bring their food etc. with them or order it on the internet). The most soul destroying part of all this is that we all end up doing low paid work cleaning their cottages for them, doing the gardening / laundry etc. It makes me sick to my stomach. To make up our income to a level where we can pay the now exorbitant rents, we have to rely on 'tax credits' etc and are then stigmatized by these people as being 'scroungers' - the very people who are causing the problems in the first place. By the way, there is no ill feeling towards people who wish to settle and work here as full time members of the community, it is the second homes that are the worst.Cornish villages apart, the elephant in the room is that something is very wrong with rents / house prices / wages generally. Growing up in the 50's and 60's in a family of 6 kids, with mom at home and dad doing a 40 hour week in low paid unskilled work, it was possible to pay the rent and bills, raise a family and save enough for an annual caravan holiday without help from the state. That would be impossible now. Even with my mum working too they would nowadays have needed gov't help and we would all be classed as 'scroungers' no doubt. I firmly believe this also contributes to the other social ills of petty crime, drunkeness, general apathy etc as it is almost impossible for ordinary people to survive in a way that they can have their pride. It is not laziness, it is something VERY wrong and out of balance in the overall economy and scheme of things, and it is the ever widening economic and social gap between rich and poor. Tue 17 Aug 2010 01:38:46 GMT+1 Icebloo It won't matter. Anyone who has been involved with planning and local councils will know how hard it is to stop any building. The councils won't ever say no to building companies because they have a lot of money. Occasionally you can delay some buildings but eventually the big money builders always win. Always. Our greenbelt land is doomed. We need politicians to stand up against money and give us real laws to help us protect the greenbelts. We have had endless politicians telling us they care about the greenbelts but none of them have done a thing to stop this land being developed. Tue 17 Aug 2010 01:38:16 GMT+1 erik888 Peter C wrote : ""I live in Cornwall, where house prices are high, wages are well below the national average""The market can not continue taken care of our housing. The combination of low wages and high house prices destroys everything of that we are struggling for in the society. Tue 17 Aug 2010 00:26:08 GMT+1 emily radetsk This post has been Removed Tue 17 Aug 2010 00:10:36 GMT+1 Alex Worrall 11. At 11:33am on 16 Aug 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:"No more building on our green countryside, period. If we need to build houses, knock down the existing inner city slums, and build them there."Yes yes yes! I totally agree. We will soon have to control our population anyway, either by culling or inevitable food shortages, so why not start now when it's still possible to do without the above being done? I don't want to live a country so crowded I may as well relocate to an Indian train for all the good it'll do. Save the countryside and put some of the responsibility on the cities. Mon 16 Aug 2010 23:15:49 GMT+1 haynonymouse The Rural Coalition says elected parish councils should instead be able to initiate community-led developments.I have no problem with that as long as we submit each parish councillor to the most rigorous of public and police scrutiny. Get quality investigative journalists to dig the dirt and let police go through their banking records with a fine toothed comb.I have to trust my own experience that parish councillors are proportionately less trustworthy than local or district councillors. I know human nature and how pack mentality works. I know that a very useful rule of thumb is that people, in general, will try and get away with what they think they can. The further you go down the pecking order the less scrutiny such organisation are put under. Local newspapers are going under almost as fast as country pubs. And I trust district councillors about as far as I could comfortably spit one. I want gold plated guarantees that no kickbacks will ever again be possible.So yes. Local plans on local scale for local housing for local people and at local pricing, but,.. BUT..keep local charm and character, get local consent, make local jobs.One house, one architect and most of all TRANSPARENCY OF PROCESS.Transparency has long been the mystical buzzword of promise never fulfilled.Think this would be too expensive? Then subsidise the process with money from the other set of books that the councils keep. The books that detail investments and aren't mentioned in the books that detail budgets. Transparency, my arm! Mon 16 Aug 2010 23:10:31 GMT+1 Im RIGHT your WRONG Look I think we should deffo keep the countryside for farmers and people who pick spuds and stuff...cus we dont want em in the towns and cities bloking the streets with their tractors.Keep the countryside and villages for people who like welly boots lol Mon 16 Aug 2010 22:59:49 GMT+1 paddyc The government have stuffed up big time, and now they are passing the buck, yet again, the people are paying the price. Once, they have gone down this route, what next? make everyone with a spare room take in a illegal immigrant! Yes, they will try this route, and more devious plans that affect the general public, but does'nt affect them. Mon 16 Aug 2010 22:16:26 GMT+1 Chris Will the holiday second homers be barred from any local refendum - I do hope so it will be so much quicker to only have to count the couple of votes per village that way.Of course if the privileged elite do get a vote, and of course they will, they ar Mr Shapps's buddies, then they will of course vote against the development of anything other than an extension to their own holiday home, before trotting back to the gated estates in Kensington and Chelsea. Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:49:04 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality 223. At 10:17pm on 16 Aug 2010, polcirkel wrote:Something constructive has to done about providing housing for the children of village residents and local farming needs, too often "townies" buy a house/cottage, only using it at the weekends, leading to the gradual decline and closure of local shops and services.================================Thing is, the vast majority of endemic locals do not want to do locally available jobs. If you moved an IT firm etc into the area or a modelling agency, then a few more might want to stay.The ESSENTIAL thing/FACT is that most of the jobs which are provided in rural communities, MOST locals turn their nose up at, even if they had social housing, which is why there are so many immigrants living in rural areas working in pubs/restaurants etc and working the fields etc. Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:41:53 GMT+1 righteoussasquatch Communication dispells hearsay / rumour so a fair decision can be made based on what people want.If we do not defend our countryside from the developers how will there be enough food to feed the people in their new homes? Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:40:53 GMT+1 J Workerbee they will need a company who will build housing for cost price, which wont appeal to many. And a system that stops people buying cheap and selling at a vast profit a few years later. Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:39:36 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality Will local referendums on new housing be good for rural areas? LOLI take it you dont mean the greeny bits in rural areas, or the woody bits, or the bits where teeny weeny creatures and dicky birds live and chirp etc and maybe a few four legged mammals, and who have their own little homes.Fact is, when you build homes on rural areas, they STOP being rural areas and become urban areas.Does this mean that they will provide a referendum for the birdys etc, maybe they could hold it on twitter. Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:37:35 GMT+1 Peter Bridgemont This post has been Removed Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:33:26 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit Something constructive has to done about providing housing for the children of village residents and local farming needs, too often "townies" buy a house/cottage, only using it at the weekends, leading to the gradual decline and closure of local shops and services.It has eventually has got to come down to reserving a number of new houses in a village development for local residents, their children and farming manpower needs, if that means keeping the prces of those houses artificially low then thats what will have to be done, the "townies" - like me - will just have to pay more to move into the villages. Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:17:03 GMT+1 J Workerbee What a can of worms, if you live in a nice area you dont want a load of cheap housing nearby. (tell me a developer who would)If you live in a decent area you dont want a load of low life scum moving in.The problem in this country is the type of person who is your neighbour. Mon 16 Aug 2010 21:05:25 GMT+1 Chris Now that Matthew Taylor is a Lord, and his Rural Coalition agenda is still being ignored, will he be speaking to his colleagues and peers in government to win the change he demanded from opposition? Mon 16 Aug 2010 20:53:51 GMT+1 thomas thompson According to the young people in a village in Yorkshire which was featured in a BBC report today, the problems are no work and no housing. I can perhaps see a village voting to build some low cost housing, but can you imagine the furore if an industrial estate was included? Interesting times ahead. Mon 16 Aug 2010 20:36:52 GMT+1 Gillian No more housing to be built until we solve the problem of those coming into britain and taking everything we offer. The Population is growing too fast. We need to address this. 30 years ago we had the same old problem. Young people could not get a council house or buy on the private sector because the price the houses were way ahead of their salaries. The answer to this problem is that until we solve the growth then we will forever need housing. And renting is no real answer. It is always better to buy. Mon 16 Aug 2010 20:31:57 GMT+1 Lewis Fitzroy "Without local people they will be no real communitys" This is a long time in comming, it could be far too late in many parts of Wales, But the prices in England for any normal rural home is beyond most working men pockets, so how can this happen rent them from the {rich weekend owner} to live Mon to fri. This is a P.R. stunt? Mon 16 Aug 2010 20:18:13 GMT+1 This is a colleague announcement 199. At 7:12pm on 16 Aug 2010, Robert wrote:"HAving lived in a rural community for most of my life I have always been appalled by the manner in which cash-rich housing developers coerce local authority and parish councils by offering large amounts on money to put up computer designed boxes"+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++But why is it within the gift of planning departments to grant permission for these? It does not seem to be so in much of the continent. In the end it is we, the people who are at fault. Politicians do not offer themselves for election on the basis of standing for tougher planning law because their research correctly tells them we don't give a damn. All the electorate want is Sky football, cheap cars, cheap holidays, junk takeaways and guess what? They've got that. Mon 16 Aug 2010 20:15:11 GMT+1 The Crimson Avenger The usual form with these things is that whoever is being consulted has to keep voting until they give the right answer. Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:59:39 GMT+1 barryp Most villages used to have adequate low price rental properties available for the local workers. The farms had cottages for their workers, country estates had cottages for their employees, even the local Policeman lived in a house provided by his employer. There were council provided houses also. Then along came the reformers, very soon followed by the Law of Unintended Consequences. A combination of Fair rent Acts, the Right to buy and straight forward cost savings resulted in the overthrow of the old village order, and allowed the cash rich to buy homes from under the locals. As they say the rest is history.Until land is released in large amounts for building the lower paid will be unable to live in the villages they grew up in. Allowing the Nimby's that now own the village to have ANY say will ensure that no houses are built where they are needed.Yet another stupid and ill thought out idea from a failed Government. Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:48:59 GMT+1 Disfunctional and Grumpy Full time residents only, and 51% to push the vote either way - not 10%That way the Nimbys don't get all their own way at the expense of locals. Look at what they have been doing moaning about wind turbines and poly tunnels - "spoils my view"!We need more housing, people don't all want to live in high density towns, but should not be excluded from the country on financial grounds only. Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:43:44 GMT+1 Auron Sounds like a bad idea to me, surely all the people who live in these areas are just going to say no to any building projects as they "dont want the beautiful countryside being built over" - as per half the HYS posts on this topic?More building definitely needs to happen but we also need to remove things like buy to let and heavily tax landlords so these people put their houses on the market and stop forcing this country into a situation where everyone will be renting and everybody is paying rent to a few rich people.Surely this would be beneficial to the economy as well. The more people who own and pay off mortgages the more spending money people will have as paying rent / mortgage is the biggest outgoing. Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:41:02 GMT+1 The Bloke 134 ///We are not building enough homes in this country and prices will keep increasing until supply can match demand. Since 1998 it has been clear that there are not enough houses being built to match population growth (this is not just immigration, but divorces and single person households creating a demand). ///You admit you are a builder, i.e., you have a vested interest in seeing houses get built.And you are clearly in denial about what's causing the demand. Of course, longevity and singlism play a role. But you people are intent on paving over the country with your houses, which are the worst quality in Europe.If it was to deal with increased singlism and numbers of elderly, you'd be building flats and old people's homes. But you're not. You connive with local govt to build endless housing estates on greenfield sites, family homes, for people to move away from the multicultural big cities and commute back to jobs there.I've seen it happen in too many places, and it's clear what's going on.That's why immigration has to be stopped, and there needs to be an enquiry into the links between the building industry and government, because policy has clearly been skewed in your favour. The BBC can't investigate, of course.It knows that the immigration it supports is the driving force behind increased housing demand, so it won't ask questions. Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:40:58 GMT+1 General_Jack_Ripper corum-populo-2010 wrote:Post #23 General_Jack_RipperAppreciate the irony on immigration too?I'm glad someone does, HYS has become increasingly reminiscent of the Town Hall meeting in the South Park episode Goobacks in recent months.(They took our jobs !!)Although why bother dealing with the issues surrounding second homes when you can blame immigrants for the rural housing shortage, even though our rural villages are the most unlikely places to find large numbers of immigrants who normally stick to cities and large towns and only tend to go to rural areas as seasonal workers.I could understand if we were talking about Slough or the many other places that have seen a recent increase in residents due to immigration but how often do you see or hear immigrants in rural areas ?We've got loads of immigrants near us in the suburbs of Liverpool but when I go to the Green Belt areas in the surrounding parts of Merseyside and Cheshire the only immigrants I ever meet are Southerners. Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:39:35 GMT+1 stanblogger The Rural Coalition is right, these decisions are best taken by a local elected body. But with certain provisos. There should be no closed meetings, all the information provided by developers should be in the public domain and any promises made by them in order to persuade councils to agree to their proposals should be legally binding on the developers. Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:39:32 GMT+1 MadTom If the only people allowed to vote are full time residents and not holiday/weekend tourists then yes.Having said that it would be fun watching these people who have paid for their 'village hideaway' have their investments rot to pieces as there would be no-one local to fix them or do the garden... Mon 16 Aug 2010 19:02:34 GMT+1 steve At 3:37pm on 16 Aug 2010, steve wrote:Councils should provide (as they used to)council homes, but instead of just rented they should be allocated to families on a rent to buy basis.------------------The reason why we have no council housing stock left is because councils have effectively being doing precisely this for the last 30 Years.It would make the situation even worse not better.--------------------------------------------------------------------It wasnt the sale of council homes that caused the problem it was the factthat the money from sales was not allowed to be spent on building new social housing.I am eternally gratefull for the scheme I bought my house for 26k its now worth circa 200k, but its only paper money as I would still have to find somewhere else to live if i sold it.----------------It was the fact that houses were sold for £26,000 that would cost £50,000 to rebuild that was the main problem with this policy.Prior to Thatchers great discount sell off of a national asset you could buy a council house at the Market rate.If properties were sold at or above the price it costs to replace them and if land for new build was infinitely available then you might have a point. Neither of these were the case or ever the intent in a policy which was basically politically motivated to produce a property owning (normally Tory voting) democracy.Don't believe it look at the Shenanigans of Westminster City Council in the 1980's for legal proof. Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:50:07 GMT+1 angry_of_garston Brilliant. It only takes 10% against to veto a housing scheme.Whats the chances that in many cases the 10% will be the people who don't want the view from their holiday homes spoiled? Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:49:51 GMT+1 RICH588 No referendums are a bad idea it is a ministers job to study the pros and cons and make a decision Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:32:45 GMT+1 Yorkshireminer No, only discussion between those involved in each village to gain mutual consent between all parties will work across the board. Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:29:33 GMT+1 Rogerjohn I think that what has been proposed is a very bad idea! There must be a more intelligent solution to the problem. I live in a largely rural Welsh county, with only some 70,000 inhabitants. An increasing percentage of the population are older people buying up properties that are out of the range of local young people. A hundred years ago the population was double what it is today. The hills are full of abandoned derelict farm houses, but there is no where for the up and coming young people to live and no jobs for them worthy of the qualifications they obtain nowadays. To make matters worse, some 40% of the jobs are in the public arena. The coalition's proposed cuts are going to make matters considerably worse here. Given this scenario, It is highly unlikely that a vote which requires an 80% majority is unlikely to succeed, given the NIMBY nature of our rural communities. Further, unless there is a significant improvement in the employment situation in the county, there won't be any young people left in the area, leaving a population of isolated farmers and us older folk. As much as the Conservatives and the Liberals like to leave thing to the market and local government, in my view, the only answer is for some form of intervention form outside, i.e.from the Welsh Assembly Government, to sort the situation out. Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:24:53 GMT+1 philjer Firstly it is hardly fair that these rules do not apply to those who live in urban areas. Secondly this is quite clearly a charter for nimbism. Areas where a lot of non-locals have moved in and driven up house prices, will reject anything that they regard as out of place in their area, so social housing will be dumped in already crowded urban areas and the nimbys will take control. But as a lot of the nimbys are Comservative voters, I can see why this Government is bringing this in. Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:19:23 GMT+1 Dave__G Here in Cornwall, the problem is villages slowly dying because of second home owners. Some old fishing villages are now 85% empty during winter months. These villages used to have banks, shops and schools, but they usually all end up closing down, due to an inability to make enough during the summer months to keep them going through the off season. Second homes need to be made punitively expensive, and this needs to happen ASAP.As for the referendum proposal; well it depends who gets the final say-so, doesn't it? If it really is the locals who ultimately decide what gets built, then it may be a decent idea. But I suspect that government WILL retain the right to overrule the wishes of the local populace, should they choose to do so. Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:15:57 GMT+1 ciconia One of the dilemmas of social or low cost housing in rural areas is that local need is used to push through schemes, but locals don't get housed. This is because the planning authority, that may 10 or 15 miles away, and run by turnips, allocates housing strictly according to it's list and selection criteria.The other scam is the one of supermarket selling it's new development as providing much needed jobs. But new social houses are needed for staff, basically because the pay is insufficient to live on. Are we subsidising the worker or the supermarket?So you get the traffic, the abandoned trolleys and litter, and the new residents that thought village life would be good, but now ask where's the youth club, the takeaway and the skateboard park?. It's your fault Parish Council, our kids are out of control because you give them nothing to do. And the jobs are part time at close to legal min.But hey ho, the builder gets paid, the developer makes his profit, and the supermarket has cheap staff and makes even more money. So, again, that's all right then. Mon 16 Aug 2010 18:15:29 GMT+1