4 ms·

> incredibly restrictive rules. Like what? Are you referring to the self-regulation at Grenfell Tower?

by noja 2y ago

gadders 2y ago
It was regulations that made the cladding be installed in the first place, I thought?
- gm3dmo 2y ago
  Poor quality of regulation allows sociopath installer who well knows the risk to use lowest cost materials to line their pockets.
  - gadders 2y ago
    Yes, or no regulation at all an unsafe cladding is not installed.
dash2 2y ago
OP is more likely to be referring to e.g. Green Belt planning restrictions.
shortrounddev2 2y ago
The thames tunnel costing as much in planning as Norway spent actually building the longest tunnel in the world. Construction projects are so fraught with regulatory burden that most of these costs are going to legal fees. It's not that they're not spending money. It's that public infrastructure is a money pit of legal fees
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  Building a tunnel through a stable and self supporting granite mountain is a bit different from building one under a river that is on top of a slab of clay and sand so I don't think the two projects are directly comparable. And the regulations are really not that different here in Norway. What is different is that there is a less adversarial society. We are a little more inclined to thrash out the problems in discussion rather than litigation. But there are plenty of infrastructure projects here that take longer and cause more disruption than they should. For instance the upgrade to the E18 between Oslo and Drammen on which 17 billion kroner (1.7 billion USD) has already been spent without getting halfway and the southern half of the project has been scrapped because of the cost of buying out the people who live in the way of the new route. https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/ny-nasjonal-transportplan-vraker-e18-satsing/s/5-95-1720609 https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/ny-nasjonal-transportplan-...
  - physicsguy 2y ago
    The main issue in the UK is the ridiculous circle of environmental impact assessments, and statutory consultees. The list of organisations that can by law be required to be consulted on any development is insane: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-matters#Statutory-consultees-on-applications https://www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-ma... Environental impact assessments now run to millions of pages. Every big infra planning application tries to anticipate any possible complaint, and the whole cost balloons.
gm3dmo 2y ago
I give them the benefit of the doubt. They are of the opinion its hard to get anything built because of regulations at the planning stage. Difficult to see anybody but piggy sticks trying to get away with building with highly flammable materials.
avianlyric 2y ago
It’s not so much restrictive rules, as it is a planning system that prioritises local concerns, regardless of how minor, or incorrect, over any kind of national priority. Our planning system is literally designed to maximally empower NIMBYism. There are no well defined planning rules, or zoning, or planning process. Every council develops their own planning policy, and broadly has the power to block any project. The result is building anything requires millions of pounds, and years of effort, to work through a councils arbitrary, and ever changing planning rules, with no guarantee of any kind of success. Most of the rest of the world operates some kind of permitted development zoning policy, where planning policy tends to provide clear rules around what can always be built in a specific area. So it possible to start a development process knowing that certain aspects of your project must be approved, as long as you follow the rules. Unlike the UK where you project might be approved if you managed to somehow follow all the undocumented, arbitrary, and changing local rules. Consequences are quite simple, only projects that are absolutely guaranteed to return large profits if successful are built. And for those projects there’s very little incentive for high quality building, because there’s no competition in the area, and costs of getting permission are so high, that a developers unique selling point is their ability to get permission, not their ability to actually build well. With regards to Grenfell, that’s the consequence of have shambolic building regulations (I.e. regulations on the quantity and safety of buildings), and a construction industry that can only make money by cutting corners, because the supply of actual work is so low.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  While not denying in any way that this sort of thing is a real problem, I think you're overstating differences between the UK and "the rest of the world". Although zoning in the USA does work to a degree as you say ("must be approved if you ..."), in reality lots of projects that seem as if they ought to be a sure thing for approval face years of process-based objections from local groups, leading to them never being built at all, or having to be significantly revised due to changes demanded or created by circumstances shifting.
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    The UKs planning system is pretty much unique. Almost no other country in the world operates a planning system where every local authority basically gets to make up their own rules around planning, and where it’s practically impossible for national government to enforce simple things like minimum house building quotas. If you want to understand why building infrastructure in the UK is so difficult, then you need to look no further than our planning system. It has uniquely managed to completely strangle infrastructure building. Sure NIBYism exists in the U.S., and there’s lots of planning red tape, and plenty of very poorly considered planning rules (such as single use zoning, and a strange obsession with single family homes). But in comparison to the UK, it’s practically pleasant to work with. Of course it helps that the U.S. has a crap ton of spare land just handing around. Much easier to build a new shopping mall, highway or suburb on a completely empty plot with no neighbours in sight. But in the UK you, you can’t swing a cat without hitting an existing building, or actively worked farm.
ryan93 2y ago
Bad faith reply

> incredibly restrictive rules. Like what? Are you referring to the self-regulation at Grenfell Tower?

by noja 2y ago

> incredibly restrictive rules. Like what? Are you referring to the self-regulation at Grenfell Tower?

gadders 2y ago

It was regulations that made the cladding be installed in the first place, I thought?

gm3dmo 2y ago
Poor quality of regulation allows sociopath installer who well knows the risk to use lowest cost materials to line their pockets.
- gadders 2y ago
  Yes, or no regulation at all an unsafe cladding is not installed.

dash2 2y ago

OP is more likely to be referring to e.g. Green Belt planning restrictions.

shortrounddev2 2y ago

The thames tunnel costing as much in planning as Norway spent actually building the longest tunnel in the world. Construction projects are so fraught with regulatory burden that most of these costs are going to legal fees. It's not that they're not spending money. It's that public infrastructure is a money pit of legal fees

ninalanyon 2y ago
Building a tunnel through a stable and self supporting granite mountain is a bit different from building one under a river that is on top of a slab of clay and sand so I don't think the two projects are directly comparable. And the regulations are really not that different here in Norway. What is different is that there is a less adversarial society. We are a little more inclined to thrash out the problems in discussion rather than litigation. But there are plenty of infrastructure projects here that take longer and cause more disruption than they should. For instance the upgrade to the E18 between Oslo and Drammen on which 17 billion kroner (1.7 billion USD) has already been spent without getting halfway and the southern half of the project has been scrapped because of the cost of buying out the people who live in the way of the new route. https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/ny-nasjonal-transportplan-vraker-e18-satsing/s/5-95-1720609 https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/ny-nasjonal-transportplan-...
- physicsguy 2y ago
  The main issue in the UK is the ridiculous circle of environmental impact assessments, and statutory consultees. The list of organisations that can by law be required to be consulted on any development is insane: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-matters#Statutory-consultees-on-applications https://www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-ma... Environental impact assessments now run to millions of pages. Every big infra planning application tries to anticipate any possible complaint, and the whole cost balloons.

gm3dmo 2y ago

I give them the benefit of the doubt. They are of the opinion its hard to get anything built because of regulations at the planning stage. Difficult to see anybody but piggy sticks trying to get away with building with highly flammable materials.

avianlyric 2y ago

It’s not so much restrictive rules, as it is a planning system that prioritises local concerns, regardless of how minor, or incorrect, over any kind of national priority. Our planning system is literally designed to maximally empower NIMBYism. There are no well defined planning rules, or zoning, or planning process. Every council develops their own planning policy, and broadly has the power to block any project. The result is building anything requires millions of pounds, and years of effort, to work through a councils arbitrary, and ever changing planning rules, with no guarantee of any kind of success. Most of the rest of the world operates some kind of permitted development zoning policy, where planning policy tends to provide clear rules around what can always be built in a specific area. So it possible to start a development process knowing that certain aspects of your project must be approved, as long as you follow the rules. Unlike the UK where you project might be approved if you managed to somehow follow all the undocumented, arbitrary, and changing local rules. Consequences are quite simple, only projects that are absolutely guaranteed to return large profits if successful are built. And for those projects there’s very little incentive for high quality building, because there’s no competition in the area, and costs of getting permission are so high, that a developers unique selling point is their ability to get permission, not their ability to actually build well. With regards to Grenfell, that’s the consequence of have shambolic building regulations (I.e. regulations on the quantity and safety of buildings), and a construction industry that can only make money by cutting corners, because the supply of actual work is so low.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
While not denying in any way that this sort of thing is a real problem, I think you're overstating differences between the UK and "the rest of the world". Although zoning in the USA does work to a degree as you say ("must be approved if you ..."), in reality lots of projects that seem as if they ought to be a sure thing for approval face years of process-based objections from local groups, leading to them never being built at all, or having to be significantly revised due to changes demanded or created by circumstances shifting.
- avianlyric 2y ago
  The UKs planning system is pretty much unique. Almost no other country in the world operates a planning system where every local authority basically gets to make up their own rules around planning, and where it’s practically impossible for national government to enforce simple things like minimum house building quotas. If you want to understand why building infrastructure in the UK is so difficult, then you need to look no further than our planning system. It has uniquely managed to completely strangle infrastructure building. Sure NIBYism exists in the U.S., and there’s lots of planning red tape, and plenty of very poorly considered planning rules (such as single use zoning, and a strange obsession with single family homes). But in comparison to the UK, it’s practically pleasant to work with. Of course it helps that the U.S. has a crap ton of spare land just handing around. Much easier to build a new shopping mall, highway or suburb on a completely empty plot with no neighbours in sight. But in the UK you, you can’t swing a cat without hitting an existing building, or actively worked farm.

ryan93 2y ago

Bad faith reply