I AGREE with David Roche (Letters, October 2) that the design of many new housing estates is poor and council officials often lack the skills to assess quality. However, I disagree that enhancing these would solve the problem, Already the development process is over-complex.
There is no reason to assume that giving more power to councils is the best way forward. Their members are not elected or staff employed because their aesthetic tastes are superior to those of others.
It is likely that had planning consent been required when they were proposed many of our most admired buildings would not exist. Most builders use well-qualified and experienced planners (often former local government staff) and architects to formulate proposals. They have much greater understanding of economics and marketing than do council personnel.
Whether they are obliged to give priority to commercial concerns is unknown. Builders say they offer what customers want and that is what these are familiar with.
When there is ongoing shortages of homes there is little incentive to innovate. The restrictions on change imposed by planning policies tend to reduce competition among builders and create an oligopoly consisting of a few large national "volume builders" which benefit from economies of scale.
In Britain the the level of self-building is far below that in most countries. Surveys show that 25 per cent of families without homes would prefer to design their own. The main obstacle is an acute shortage of plots at affordable prices. Unlike the situation in North America and Australia, there are few organisations which create and sell these. Why so is not known.
A further problem is the need to obtain detail planning consent, which can be costly and time -consuming.
In order to meet needs, increase choice and facilitate better design there should be an objective to greatly increase the supply of affordable plots for self-builders. These could start with small homes and one could expand these over time.
Designing and building a home is a valuable educational experience.
Euan Bremner,
98 West Graham Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel