Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

B1050 – New Housing Bill 2016

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    B1050 – New Housing Bill 2016, TSR Government
    A
    B I L L
    TO

    Reduce energy usage and costs for homeowners.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Energy usage
    (1) Smart meters are mandatory for all residential and commercial property built from 1 January 2020 in relation to electricity, gas and water.
    (2) All new residential property constructed from 1 January 2020 is mandated to feature an embedded ground source heat pump.

    2 Planning reform
    (1) From 1 January 2017 the following grounds for objecting to residential property development are no longer valid—
    Negative effects on amenity;
    Over-development;
    Character of local area.
    (2) The stipulations contained within Section 2(1) only apply to the counties of Greater London, Hampshire, West and South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands, Nottinghamshire, Bristol and Tyne and Wear.

    3 Commencement, extent and short title
    (1) This Act comes into force on the day after the date of Royal Assent.
    (2) This Act extends to England.
    (3) This Act may be cited as the New Housing Act 2016.

    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Smart meters are a digital technology which tracks and transmits to your supplier the usage level of the utility being monitored (in this case electricity, water and gas). By being able to monitor utility usage both customers and suppliers are able to potentially use utilities more efficiently and reduce costs.

    Ground source heat pumps are a method of maintaining a near constant temperature in ones premises by drawing upon the latent underground warmth. Ground source heat pumps can be installed underneath the house during construction at a small cost, reducing the level of heating required by the homeowner.

    Current planning law allows vested interests a disproportionate level of power in terms of being able to delay or stop development for what are often insufficient reasons in the mind of this government. By taking power away from vested interests in terms of the most insufficient reasoning we will provide a greater incentive to develop. By restricting such development to the counties containing the ten largest cities in England, we can provide housing where demand is highest and provide an incentive for further economies of scale and efficiency savings to occur through agglomeration economics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why can't character be an issue? I'm all for not pandering to NIMBY's but if I wanted to erect a gold painted mansion in the middle of Cardiff charecter should definitely be a consideration.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    With Aph here, character should be taken into consideration. imagine building loads of flats or luxury housing in the middle of Camden Town, it would seriously affect the character and history of Camden, as one example.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Get rid of s2(2) and I really like this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If it was just section 1 I could consider voting in favour of this. I cant agree with section 2 at all.

    wrt section 1, I think you need to be clearer on whether the dates you give are from the start of construction or completion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, just something to add, you really need to include a reform of the law of private nuisance (including Rylands v Fletcher claims) in this, because this doesn't remove the possibility of someone making a tort claim for the things mentioned in s2(1).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nay,

    Section 2 is rubbish
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Section 2 is just wrong. Introduce all the possible exemptions and I might change my mind.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So Oxford and Cambridge are protected under this Bill but Manchester and Liverpool are not. This may say a lot about the Government or the top civil service. Section 1 as a standalone Bill would have my support, section 2 needs a rethink and a sunset clause for planning permission.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay because of Section 2. The selection of administrative areas is a little random (Nottinghamshire but not the Hull, Medway or Torbay areas, wtf) and both overdevelopment and character should be a consideration. For character, many of the inner city districts in these areas have unique aspects or features that attract tourists - you do realise that under this bill, I am free to obstruct tourists' view of Buckingham Palace by constructing a large, ugly concrete block of flats with the words 'Glory to Communism' written across the front, should I so desire? As for overdevelopment, it's important for people and the environment to have green spaces around - while obviously some greenfield sites have to be built on, we should try and use as many brownfield sites as possible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain for now as i have issues with section 2 however i agree with section 1 , smart meters are a great idea and should be mandatory is all homes
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No, I do not support section 2, as someone who has campaigned against a development on all of those grounds, the grounds are needed to stop unwanted developments. Planning reform is needed but to remove grounds creates situations where reasonable appeals are unsuccessful because the grounds for appeal have been removed. To give an example, I do not think building an extra 1000 homes in an area where the roadways are at 99% capacity according to the council's own review is a sensible thing to do, but disallowing an appeal based on over-development allows the development; nor do I think building a gypsy camp in a rural English village with thatched house roofs is desired but removing the right to appeal on loss of character disallows the appeal.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, I do not support section 2, as someone who has campaigned against a development on all of those grounds, the grounds are needed to stop unwanted developments. Planning reform is needed but to remove grounds creates situations where reasonable appeals are unsuccessful because the grounds for appeal have been removed. To give an example, I do not think building an extra 1000 homes in an area where the roadways are at 99% capacity according to the council's own review is a sensible thing to do, but disallowing an appeal based on over-development allows the development; nor do I think building a gypsy camp in a rural English village with thatched house roofs is desired but removing the right to appeal on loss of character disallows the appeal.
    I didn't realise any of the listed conurbations were in rural England, they by definition aren't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise any of the listed conurbations were in rural England, they by definition aren't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hampshire, Nottinghamshire and West and South Yorkshire all contain significant rural areas.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise any of the listed conurbations were in rural England, they by definition aren't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Given all of the large areas included have stretches of open land with small villages in the impact is the same, for example, the county of Nottinghamshire contains Gotham, Radcliffe, East Markham, Kelham, Edwinstowe, Kirton, Laxton, Papplewick, and Tuxford. The problem is using large countries when large counties are not uniform, the bill should use large counties but be detailed to govern the areas in the counties where the rules will apply.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Council housing ruined the character of my local town so this is a sweet no
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    Council housing ruined the character of my local town so this is a sweet no
    This bill does not have the state build new housing.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Given all of the large areas included have stretches of open land with small villages in the impact is the same, for example, the county of Nottinghamshire contains Gotham, Radcliffe, East Markham, Kelham, Edwinstowe, Kirton, Laxton, Papplewick, and Tuxford. The problem is using large countries when large counties are not uniform, the bill should use large counties but be detailed to govern the areas in the counties where the rules will apply.
    Many towns and villages within a county surrounding our large cities simply exist to act as commuter conurbations (Huddersfield and Wakefield for Leeds as an example) and ultimately i had to draw a line. The aim of this bill is to allow urban expansion in and around out largest cities while protecting most of our 'green and pleasant land'. This bill achieves that even if some villages lose out.

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Nay because of Section 2. The selection of administrative areas is a little random (Nottinghamshire but not the Hull, Medway or Torbay areas, wtf) and both overdevelopment and character should be a consideration. For character, many of the inner city districts in these areas have unique aspects or features that attract tourists - you do realise that under this bill, I am free to obstruct tourists' view of Buckingham Palace by constructing a large, ugly concrete block of flats with the words 'Glory to Communism' written across the front, should I so desire? As for overdevelopment, it's important for people and the environment to have green spaces around - while obviously some greenfield sites have to be built on, we should try and use as many brownfield sites as possible.
    The selection was not random. Those counties contain the ten largest economies in England.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Oh, just something to add, you really need to include a reform of the law of private nuisance (including Rylands v Fletcher claims) in this, because this doesn't remove the possibility of someone making a tort claim for the things mentioned in s2(1).
    (Original post by cBay)
    If it was just section 1 I could consider voting in favour of this. I cant agree with section 2 at all.

    wrt section 1, I think you need to be clearer on whether the dates you give are from the start of construction or completion.
    Those two changes are approved and will be made.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This bill is in cessation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
Updated: September 23, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.