kenny

It was a few years ago we went proper. But we visited a few weeks ago on a cruise. Last time round, the place we really remember was the fish market. We ate there a few times as it was cheaper than everywhere else and the food was great. The hot food area is bigger now than it was the first time, so its obviously popular. I wouldn't bother with car personally.

Thats about all that is there, you will have a good time. The cable car is worth a go. Brace yourself for the prices.... Cheapest food is in the fishmarket, Dragøy Coastal Mathus. For the northern lights, go on a tour where they give you warm clothes, its your best chance of seeing them.

It's just a more complicated planning process, nothing a reasonable architect can't sort though.

We have a house with a wet electric system with a pair of electric combi boilers. They are around 25% more expensive than gas to run.

We should have a separate thread for all of our goals too.

Some interesting articles about this deal going back to 2019, pre Brexit. Amazing how many were completely against it from both sides of the house. I think it was Trumps idea in 2019. Funny how these things come around.

She wanted to though so she could spend them on something her party wanted. Which is all well and good as long as she says this rather than lying about it.

Thats not my opinion. You said this. The person who said the quote I posted disagrees with you. Unfortunately she is now the Chancellor. I would guess its raising taxes when its Tory fiscal drag and prudent governance when its Labour fiscal drag? FWIW, I wouldn't have touched the bands on this occasion either. But then I wouldn't have raised the tax on dividends whilst claiming to protect 'working people' which constitutes more than 10% of all tax payers in the UK.

“People on average earnings are paying more in tax because they are dragged into higher tax brackets. That is a sign of failure. The government is picking the pockets of working people.”

Very true. But it brushes neatly over that we have the least dense cities in Europe. So the majority of our population live in 2 storey houses even in the city boundary. It tends to be 3-5 storey apartments in Europe in the area. Even London isn't particularly dense compared to many places. We think either houses or high rise. The middle ground is the optimum IMO.

Nail on head. That would be much better than a typical UK housing estate. As for the people, anyone that can't look after their social housing should lose it, regardless of what type of housing it is. The better the quality, typically the better it is looked after in my experience.

There are some boroughs (Haringay and Croydon, im sure there are others) that have done brilliant work on incremental densification rather than just the bigger high rise stuff people notice. Both these councils were mentioned by Rayner prior to the election as being something to follow as they have done brilliant work, but the ideas were dropped by the time of the election. In Haringay there are permittted development rights to raise the height of the existing terraced houses by a storey. There are pre-agreed designs for the owner to follow and essentially turns streets of 2 storey buildings into 3 storey with no other changes to the area. In Croydon, there is permtted development rights in areas near stations, to flatten a pair of semi-detached houses and replace with small 3 storey apartment blocks. Essentially turning 2 units into 8-12 on an existing plot of land. Its clever stuff, simple and costs the council nothing to achieve.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/24/almost-15m-homes-could-be-built-on-brownfield-sites-in-england-report-finds?utm_source=chatgpt.com According to some reports, Labour could build their entire 5 year target on brownfield only. With more than half already having planning permission and could start to building within weeks if required.

We have been to 42 countries so far. I agree that isn't enough and im very jealous of some those on this board that have amazing travel plans and ambitions. I would tentatively suggest that I am above average in the travelled stakes. I would also tentatively suggest that I have seen many more properties of all types that the average person as that is my job. But what do I know. Once the countryside is paved over, it won't ever be unpaved. As I keep stating is encourages a car based lifestyle which is not what we should be doing in the future. There is a reason that when you drive in other densely populated countries their roads are smaller than ours yet seem to have hardly any cars on them. (I don't mean North Italy of course, worst driving experience ive had abroad.)

Whenever I visit a city abroad we stay in an apartment. When you drive around the countryside of foreign countries, you don't see sprawling low density small houses everywhere. (You also see less traffic.....) Every apartment scheme I've designed in Leicester recently has been filled in a matter of weeks. It's a British obsession that defines happiness at home on whether you have your own roof or whether you share it.

I'll repeat, why are we the only country in the world that believes a 3 bedroom semi with a teeny tiny garden is the only way to live. The rest of the world lives in apartments in cities. Including families. If the issue is one of choice and preferences, then we clearly don't have a housing crisis.

My choice would be densify cities. South Korean cities are 3 times more dense on average than UK ones for example.

We could certainly look at vertical farming, but it's a long way off replacing regular farming in terms of cost. I can't see its that good for the environment unless it allows fields to be rewilded rather than built on. I'm surprised you are so supportive of urban sprawl.

It's a complicated answer. But a large part of it seems to be import 75% of all grain and beef from elsewhere whilst growing lots of rice. What's your point? We could do that, but we are light on suitable areas for rice growing and we grow most of our grain and beef ourselves.

Very true. It's very much the ultimate finite resource. A resource that is already too small for the current population, as well as shrinking due to coastal erosion and rising sea levels. It would foolish to waste it.

Whoosh?

Particularly if the growing population eats less food than before. It could help with the obesity crisis in a 2 for the price of 1 problem solver?

Tru dat. Let's not bother with any of it.

What did agriculture ever do for anyone?

We need to accept we have rental society moving forward, a more European model. We currently view apartments as being for the young and poor. We need more PRS rental schemes with 3 bed family units in cities, where the public transport, schools, hospitals etc are already in place. Each time we build 3000 houses somewhere, they need a school. So we build one. The houses have some HA units, but are mostly £350k minimum in price. So people with money move there for a car centric lifestyle probably from a city. At this point, the schools in the city have to shrink as the birth rate is going down. So we are building new schools at great cost, not because we need them but because we encouraged the middle classes to move away from the existing ones. The current master planning mentality is ludicrous and wasteful. What would be better, a standard housing Estate with tiny gardens and cars littered everywhere. A place with little communal space outside those designated for bng. Or a properly designed sets of apartments with properly managed gardens and play areas for children. (I've never designed apartments with play space in 25 years in this industry). Most social housing folk have little interest or regard for their outdoor space anyway and it's usually too small for children to play, so why not ditch it.