Always a good listen.... But you glossed over the fact the 🐮 ☕ house was 'retrospective' planning permission. There is nothing that will make people more nimby than seeing others ignore and disregard the rules - it's a known (and harshly treated) manoeuvre to disregard planning then apply later, asking forgiveness rather than permission. It's never well received by local community, and rather than being a story about nimbys, it might be a story about the strength of local communities when people feel their protections are being ignored!
Agree strongly with this. I'm a YIMBY but I think all retrospective planning applications should be rejected out of hand and the buildings in question demolished, crushed into small cubes, and fired into the sun. Even if the development was perfectly reasonable and would have been granted permission straightforwardly if they'd asked for it first. I'm militant about this, perhaps (definitely?) irrationally so, but it really does annoy me.
The planning procedures drastically need reforming, but you do actually need procedures. "But it's already been bullt" should never be allowed to be a factor at all, and the only way to avoid it is to ban retrospective applications altogether, with prejudice. The excuses given to oppose the development do sound bloody ridiculous, but the only reason they should've needed to give at all was "didn't ask permission first: into the sun cannon". But yes, the system should be completely redrawn so that stuff like this does get approved as seamlessly as possible when it is asked for nicely at the very beginning.
I can't help feeling that your solution to freight crossing the channel sounds an awful lot like the DVSA's driving test booking system. This will end up with lorries not being able to cross the channel for six months.
Always a good listen.... But you glossed over the fact the 🐮 ☕ house was 'retrospective' planning permission. There is nothing that will make people more nimby than seeing others ignore and disregard the rules - it's a known (and harshly treated) manoeuvre to disregard planning then apply later, asking forgiveness rather than permission. It's never well received by local community, and rather than being a story about nimbys, it might be a story about the strength of local communities when people feel their protections are being ignored!
Agree strongly with this. I'm a YIMBY but I think all retrospective planning applications should be rejected out of hand and the buildings in question demolished, crushed into small cubes, and fired into the sun. Even if the development was perfectly reasonable and would have been granted permission straightforwardly if they'd asked for it first. I'm militant about this, perhaps (definitely?) irrationally so, but it really does annoy me.
The planning procedures drastically need reforming, but you do actually need procedures. "But it's already been bullt" should never be allowed to be a factor at all, and the only way to avoid it is to ban retrospective applications altogether, with prejudice. The excuses given to oppose the development do sound bloody ridiculous, but the only reason they should've needed to give at all was "didn't ask permission first: into the sun cannon". But yes, the system should be completely redrawn so that stuff like this does get approved as seamlessly as possible when it is asked for nicely at the very beginning.
If nobody eats cows then there won’t be cows.
No farmer raises cows just because they like looking at them.
Look at Shire horses. Once not needed to pull things along they disappeared.
Some tried to keep Shires and invite people to come and see them. But it wasn’t economic and they closed down.
I can't help feeling that your solution to freight crossing the channel sounds an awful lot like the DVSA's driving test booking system. This will end up with lorries not being able to cross the channel for six months.