bickster Posted January 10 Moderator Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, Genie said: The government is right to push for this money to come from the private sector who are profiting from the purchase of public land… Are they? All that does is inflate the bottom line and push house prices further skyward and as you ably demonstrate, they don't get built anyway. Seems like classic Tory nonsense. Governments, whether that be local or national (essentially it will be national where the money comes from) should build necessary infrastructure. Builders just shouldn't be given the land earmarked for such projects in the planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 Most people have a love to some greater or lesser degree for their roots, for where they are from. Also, I’ve been very lucky and through work and hols and family I’ve seen pretty much every town across great swathes of the UK, from Belfast and Armagh, Inverness, Glasgow, Newcastle, Norwich, Exeter, Swansea. The vast majority of places have some redeeming feature, something you can enjoy. I was in Reading a couple of times recently and there are some lovely quiet canal walks. But some towns, I just haven’t been there long enough to find the nice bit. You’d hope they have them, I’ve loved parts of Bradford, parts of Ipswich, even Croydon. But yeah, some of them, I’ve not been there long enough to find the nice bit. Slough and Basingstoke stand out as being particularly anonymous anywhere places where I didn’t find the jewel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 40 minutes ago, bickster said: Are they? All that does is inflate the bottom line and push house prices further skyward and as you ably demonstrate, they don't get built anyway. Seems like classic Tory nonsense. Governments, whether that be local or national (essentially it will be national where the money comes from) should build necessary infrastructure. Builders just shouldn't be given the land earmarked for such projects in the planning. Well if the government use public money for infrastructure upgrades as a result of additional houses then it still needs to be funded, but it’ll be paid by everyone rather than those choosing to buy the new house. Also, house builders sell at market value, not what it cost to build plus profit percentage. If they got the land for free they wouldn’t then sell the houses cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 hours ago, Genie said: The builders will build based on the law. They aren’t going to spent another £1500 per house putting something in which isn’t required by law. Why have you singled out insulation as a negative by the way? Not negative, it's just that's all they are, insulated boxes. Why do you say they only build based on law, like its okay? To be fair it's only the more commercial builders who build for the government who build crap, I.e Wimpy, Barratt, Redrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 10 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: Not negative, it's just that's all they are, insulated boxes. Thats such a bizarre comment I don’t know where to start 13 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: Why do you say they only build based on law, like its okay? To be fair it's only the more commercial builders who build for the government who build crap, I.e Wimpy, Barratt, Redrow. Why would any business add significant extra costs to their product for no reason? Do you think Mercedes would stick heated, cooled and massage seats to their base model cars for free on the off chance someone in the future might like it? Of course they wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 hours ago, Genie said: Thats such a bizarre comment I don’t know where to start Why would any business add significant extra costs to their product for no reason? Do you think Mercedes would stick heated, cooled and massage seats to their base model cars for free on the off chance someone in the future might like it? Of course they wont. I'm not sure where to start on your answers to be honest either. What i am getting at is, Mercedes build quality is the same weather you buy an A class or S Class. If I'm paying 250k or 1 million for a house I expect the brickwork to be half decent, an my windows fit correctly, I ain't bothered about spec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 8 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: I'm not sure where to start on your answers to be honest either. What i am getting at is, Mercedes build quality is the same weather you buy an A class or S Class. If I'm paying 250k or 1 million for a house I expect the brickwork to be half decent, an my windows fit correctly, I ain't bothered about spec. That’s not in question, but you think house builders should put car chargers in as standard even though they don’t have to. Same as solar panels I guess. I know they are both optional upgrades nowadays on most builds but they aren’t going to put them onto every house for free. If the law changed and it stated they had to be included in the base spec then they’d be included, and priced for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 10 Moderator Share Posted January 10 5 minutes ago, Genie said: That’s not in question, but you think house builders should put car chargers in as standard even though they don’t have to. Same as solar panels I guess. I know they are both optional upgrades nowadays on most builds but they aren’t going to put them onto every house for free. If the law changed and it stated they had to be included in the base spec then they’d be included, and priced for. Same with seatbelts etc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 10 Moderator Share Posted January 10 26 minutes ago, bickster said: Same with seatbelts etc @Geniemotor manufacturers didn’t provide safety features such as seatbelts as standard until the law made them iirc. They were originally an upgrade. Same for the rear ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, bickster said: @Geniemotor manufacturers didn’t provide safety features such as seatbelts as standard until the law made them iirc. They were originally an upgrade. Same for the rear ones Ok I understand. Similar with ABS brakes. Initially it was a cool new technology limited to high end cars or as an optional upgrade until the law made it mandatory as it saved thousands of lives every year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 26/10/2023 at 15:21, chrisp65 said: Look at those pictures! Nothing quite says welcome to your new family home like the oil stain under the tarmac patch for your little audi you bought on a pcp. It is quite an interesting location and it looks like the houses were built on land formerly occupied by warehouses or similar. Clive Road looks like it runs along a cliff which was once the natural shoreline, and the ground below may have been both saline and devoid of topsoil. The limitations might have determined the design, with the added risk of flooding in mind. Ideal for two-car dinkies who hate gardening and like a harbour view. But I bet there's a few been bought as a potential Airbnb. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 30 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Clive Road looks like it runs along a cliff which was once the natural shoreline, and the ground below may have been both saline and devoid of topsoil. I think I worked with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 49 minutes ago, Xela said: I think I worked with him. I lived around the corner on Phyllis Street. Then someone vandalised the sign and I lived in SiPhyllis Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said: It is quite an interesting location and it looks like the houses were built on land formerly occupied by warehouses or similar. Clive Road looks like it runs along a cliff which was once the natural shoreline, and the ground below may have been both saline and devoid of topsoil. The limitations might have determined the design, with the added risk of flooding in mind. Ideal for two-car dinkies who hate gardening and like a harbour view. But I bet there's a few been bought as a potential Airbnb. Kind of. Now, you’ll hear urban myths from ex pats, but the island was indeed an island and yes Clive Road was the top of a coastal cliff. But then 130 years ago the natural harbour was filled in and turned in to a dock, that made up ground then became industrial with warehousing and a train graveyard. That contaminated land then became a housing estate as per the picture above. There’s no chance of serious deep flooding, there’s still a dock and the water level of the sea would have to rise a good few meters. So they should be able to pay off their mortgages before there’s regular flooding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 10 hours ago, Genie said: See above, builders provide the money for these… then the government don’t provide. At some point i’ll have to dig out the paperwork from when we bought our house. There were pages and pages of things the builder had to pay for on top of the land. Top of the list was 4 point something million for a new primary school. Then cumulatively millions more on doctors, dentists, other schools, roads, sports facilities, bus facilities etc etc etc. The government is right to push for this money to come from the private sector who are profiting from the purchase of public land… but it would be lovely if they actually spent it on the things it was claimed for. In that case they should build the estates with big gaps in for the school, facilities etc, but they don't it's just back to back little boxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 30 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said: In that case they should build the estates with big gaps in for the school, facilities etc, but they don't it's just back to back little boxes There’s a big site here for the school to go on when built. I do think the roads around it will be lethal though (like every other school in the country). The planners naively believe that as the main catchment for the school is the housing estate parents won’t drive to drop the children off I’m glad I don’t live near it. Edited January 10 by Genie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 10 Moderator Share Posted January 10 On 09/01/2024 at 19:35, chrisp65 said: I need to go to Slough, at a specific time on a specific day. Car = £30 fuel Train = £269.20 (plus parking at the train station) decisions, decisions… Obviously someone had to pay, what, £20,000+, to have the option to pay £30 fuel to go by car. And someone had to pay to learn to drive the car. And someone had to pay to build the road and repair the road, but unlike going by train, it’s not the commuter who pays most of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 10 Author Share Posted January 10 7 minutes ago, blandy said: Obviously someone had to pay, what, £20,000+, to have the option to pay £30 fuel to go by car. And someone had to pay to learn to drive the car. And someone had to pay to build the road and repair the road, but unlike going by train, it’s not the commuter who pays most of that. Is the commuter paying most of the true cost of rail? Subsidies on fares were around £6 / £7 billion a year pre covid and were about £16 billion last year? Which kind of brings us nicely on to today’s news from HS2, they now estimate the new cost for the reduced HS2 is about £60Billion, not the £45billion suggested by the government. They also mentioned today that because of the new train design for the fast London bit, the northern bit will actually be slower than current trains, with slightly less capacity. Was there ever such an ill conceived project? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 17 minutes ago, blandy said: Obviously someone had to pay, what, £20,000+, to have the option to pay £30 fuel to go by car. And someone had to pay to learn to drive the car. And someone had to pay to build the road and repair the road, but unlike going by train, it’s not the commuter who pays most of that. Ahhh, so in reality it's cheaper to go by train?? I could (if I could be bothered) work out the mathamatics of owning that car for 10 years and fuel costs, still would work out cheaper than 10 years taking the train, Thoughtful analogy though. My pal when he commuted to London and Manchester from Birmingham had a season ticket for 2 years, cost around £17000 a year (paid for by his company), this was about 5-10 years ago too, Shocking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Is the commuter paying most of the true cost of rail? Subsidies on fares were around £6 / £7 billion a year pre covid and were about £16 billion last year? Which kind of brings us nicely on to today’s news from HS2, they now estimate the new cost for the reduced HS2 is about £60Billion, not the £45billion suggested by the government. They also mentioned today that because of the new train design for the fast London bit, the northern bit will actually be slower than current trains, with slightly less capacity. Was there ever such an ill conceived project? Believe it or not, some of trains were built and ready, now 70% of the trains design and software have now got to be scrapped and brought up to date for when HS2 finally arrives, Actual cost has increased to £66 Billion due to increases of contractor costs and materials , i'e price of steel up 47%. It's madness, it really is!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts