Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Caius

Controversial Housing Schemes Could Be Revived

Recommended Posts

A series of abandoned housing schemes could be revived in the teeth of local opposition under the new planning rules.

Protesters at Elsenham who fought the 'eco-town’ proposal might have to get out their placards again Photo: DAVID ROSE

By Alastair Jamieson8:30PM BST 06 Aug 2011

Campaigners fear local objections will not be enough to stop at least 135,000 new homes being built across England's countryside.

They include so-called 'eco towns' proposed by Labour but shelved by the Coalition.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) says the new rules will be used by developers to revive unpopular schemes.

The Draft National Planning Policy Framework calls on councils to "approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay".

Most at risk are areas earmarked for possible development under Labour, according to the CPRE. They include south Cambridgeshire, where 4,800 homes are planned on greenfield land at Northstowe, a former eco-town site.

Just over half of authorities in England have local plans identifying how many houses are needed and where they can be built, many of them on greenfield sites.

A CPRE study of these plans has found a total of 135,000 potential new homes.

"That will be the tip of the iceberg because other councils don't have local plans at all," said Paul Miner of the CPRE. "Current planning laws favour the reuse of brownfield sites but the new rules effectively remove the protection for greenfield land – the countryside.

"Developers will go for the areas where the local plan has identified a need for housing as it will be harder for the council to refuse permission. Any builder refused permission will simply appeal, citing the local housing shortage. Lawyers will have a field day."

The controversial eco-towns scheme was drawn up under the Labour government to meet what it said was massive demand for new housing with new communities on brown and greenfield sites.

The towns were supposed to be 'zero carbon' with houses designed to have minimal energy use and shops and schools all within walking distances of homes.

But the scheme foundered after the election – and in the face of widespread local opposition – and was essentially shelved by the Department for Communities, with the go-ahead given to just one, Northwest Bicester in Oxfordshire.

Campaigners also fear other schemes which had been defeated by local opposition could be revived.

Angie Ravn-Aagaard, who was part of successful campaign to prevent Salden Chase, a development of 5,000 new homes on farmland on the outskirts of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire said: "With the change in government we thought there would be less top-down planning and more local decision-making, but now it seems councils will have to agree to a national drive to build more housing.

"I am very worried that developers aren't going to go away if they get rejected and we could still end up with an inappropriate scheme despite local opposition."

A spokesman for the development consortium behind Salden Chase said it had no plans to make revive the project under existing planning rules.

However, there is also concern that inspectors are already applying the pro-development principles set out in the proposed new rules.

Developers last week won an appeal to build 230 homes in near Hinckley, Leicestershire, despite the local council unanimously rejecting the plan.

An inspector appointed by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said the "pressing need" for more houses in the area outweighed the need to protect green spaces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8686079/Controversial-housing-schemes-could-be-revived-under-new-planning-rules.html

What's this about then?

Edited by Caius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A series of abandoned housing schemes could be revived in the teeth of local opposition under the new planning rules.

http://www.telegraph...ning-rules.html

What's this about then?

Nothing, just the NIMBYs working themselves up into a frenzy of self-righteousness in case anything should happen as a result of the new planning rules which, god-forbid, might result in a few basis points being taken off their precious house values. Bunch of selfish ar*eholes the lot of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing, just the NIMBYs working themselves up into a frenzy of self-righteousness in case anything should happen as a result of the new planning rules which, god-forbid, might result in a few basis points being taken off their precious house values. Bunch of selfish ar*eholes the lot of 'em.

they may be starting to realise that the political parties are having to think about the younger generations' votes, which is why no political party is particularly in favour of NIMBYs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they may be starting to realise that the political parties are having to think about the younger generations' votes, which is why no political party is particularly in favour of NIMBYs

Good, about effing time too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, about effing time too!

Bumped into a middle aged NIMBY couple last week . He did not say much but she had a right rant, and said when developers build they should build this that and the other for the community.

I said that the devleopers should be allowed to build houses and from the profits they will pay tax , the people buying the houses will be tax payers as well and that tax money should be used to build the things she was demanding the devlopers build . I explained that the extra costs for amenitys the developers have to include on and around sites adds to the cost which the buyers end up paying , hence the priced out generation.

She said if the young did not spend their money on entertainment ect they could buy a house like she did in her day. I said no even if they never spent a penny from their salary they are still priced out. I also said when she bought it was only hard for a few years as wage inflation made her big mortgage small , she denied this untill I said yes it did as you bought before me and for me it was only a few years.

She was a right pug faced im alright jack NIMBY , fk everyone else.

Edited by miko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they may be starting to realise that the political parties are having to think about the younger generations' votes, which is why no political party is particularly in favour of NIMBYs

Good point, I've mentioned this before that as we all get older and older we are taking up the levers of power and they will have little choice.

I wish we didn't have to build over green belt and I wish the CPRE could have it's way but they have their homes and they have the luxury of taking this view and I didn't let several million people into the UK in the last decade who all need to be housed.

Sorry CPRE, we must build and dismantle the archaic planning rules that's all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, I've mentioned this before that as we all get older and older we are taking up the levers of power and they will have little choice.

I wish we didn't have to build over green belt and I wish the CPRE could have it's way but they have their homes and they have the luxury of taking this view and I didn't let several million people into the UK in the last decade who all need to be housed.

Sorry CPRE, we must build and dismantle the archaic planning rules that's all there is to it.

Who exactly wants to go & build a house in the middle of a 2000 acre intensively farmed strip of rape seed oil plants?

I doubt the lack of water/electricity/sewage (without a huge premium to connect them) would appeal to many ..bit to mention the daily dosage of chemicals that would burn your skin off

Most new homes built without planning permission would be in/around the south east & esp London not in the countryside.

Within a 3 mile radius of my London home you could probably build half a million new homes.

It's absurd to think new homes would be built in the countryside

& what's this Love affair with 'the countryside'

Intensively farmed chemical soup land appeals to who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who exactly wants to go & build a house in the middle of a 2000 acre intensively farmed strip of rape seed oil plants?

I doubt the lack of water/electricity/sewage (without a huge premium to connect them) would appeal to many ..bit to mention the daily dosage of chemicals that would burn your skin off

Most new homes built without planning permission would be in/around the south east & esp London not in the countryside.

Within a 3 mile radius of my London home you could probably build half a million new homes.

It's absurd to think new homes would be built in the countryside

& what's this Love affair with 'the countryside'

Intensively farmed chemical soup land appeals to who?

Like you.....it doesn't quite add up in my mind either. There aren't the jobs in the country-side ......unless you count the ones created to build these new homes which will be short term at best.

Edited by Caius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who exactly wants to go & build a house in the middle of a 2000 acre intensively farmed strip of rape seed oil plants?

I doubt the lack of water/electricity/sewage (without a huge premium to connect them) would appeal to many ..bit to mention the daily dosage of chemicals that would burn your skin off

Most new homes built without planning permission would be in/around the south east & esp London not in the countryside.

Within a 3 mile radius of my London home you could probably build half a million new homes.

It's absurd to think new homes would be built in the countryside

& what's this Love affair with 'the countryside'

Intensively farmed chemical soup land appeals to who?

I agree with Pl1. Interesting that you argue building would be in the South East ergo not "countryside". I'm sure there is countryside in the south-east and around London.. you are simply expanding the suberbs.

Plenty of arable/pastoral land is also located near villages so not really beyond the wit of man to supply utilities.

As PL1 says.. we will end up building a lot of extra housing as a knee jerk reaction to a badly managed population. I know some people argue that our population density in England is not that high, but I think many also disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most new homes built without planning permission would be in/around the south east & esp London not in the countryside.

Within a 3 mile radius of my London home you could probably build half a million new homes.

It's absurd to think new homes would be built in the countryside

So where are they built? Places that aren't countryside are urban, i.e. they already have things built on them unless you're talking about brownfield sites, which I doubt from the numbers (if there was that much brownfield space available building would be a complete non-issue for everyone).

& what's this Love affair with 'the countryside'

Intensively farmed chemical soup land appeals to who?

People who want to food? And even the bland intensively farmed bits aren't quite as depressing as identikit slavebox land. Besides, they're another symptom of the same problem - too many people for the size of the place. People object because we're well past the optimum population density for having enough to have a developed society and being able to lead an attractive life in pleasant surroundings (which includes the next town being more than 10 minutes' drive away). Every ugly blight you'll see has been created by people who's sole criteria is "practical" or "economical", and who seem to think that keeping one or two relatively small places as museum pieces is good enough. That attitude paints a very bleak vision for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like you.....it doesn't quite add up in my mind either. There aren't the jobs in the country-side ......unless you count the ones created to build these new homes which will be short term at best.

that mayt qualify as the most nimby post I have ever seen ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People object because we're well past the optimum population density for having enough to have a developed society and being able to lead an attractive life in pleasant surroundings (which includes the next town being more than 10 minutes' drive away).

we have never ever had that optimum density, or rather when we did, during the dark ages, owing partly to under population, we had a very poor level of existence with life expectancy in the 20s or 30s

fatuous nimby post number 286,995,377,273 for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who exactly wants to go & build a house in the middle of a 2000 acre intensively farmed strip of rape seed oil plants?

I doubt the lack of water/electricity/sewage (without a huge premium to connect them) would appeal to many ..bit to mention the daily dosage of chemicals that would burn your skin off

Most new homes built without planning permission would be in/around the south east & esp London not in the countryside.

Within a 3 mile radius of my London home you could probably build half a million new homes.

It's absurd to think new homes would be built in the countryside

& what's this Love affair with 'the countryside'

Intensively farmed chemical soup land appeals to who?

Left to nature, Britain would be a forest. Anything else, more or less, is man made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would move a lot of stuff out of London to relieve pressure on it and reduce corruption. Media to Manchester, Parliament to Birmingham, the City to Penzance (joke, the last one).

Yep, should be Truro.

I would then institute population controls with a target over time to reduce the overall population to around about 5 million (we talking a long time here) or what we could reasonable farm to feed ourselves and have some decent countryside near urban centres.

Blimey, that's further than even I'd go. I'd settle for about half of what we've got for producing a good balance. The sad thing is that if certain people weren't so keen on importing as many as possible that's the direction we'd be heading in. It's short-termism at its worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.