England To Remain 'green & Pleasant'....

[John The Pessimist]

Pickles wants to confine building & conversions within existing urban boundaries. 'Let them eat brownfield sites'......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10899117/Pickles-keep-Britain-a-green-and-pleasant-land.html

[Ulfar]

Pickles is a pickle, at some point we are going to have to build on greenfield sites.

If any government plans on a serious building effort this will quite quickly become apparent. What will happen is some land will magically change from Green to Brown.

[okaycuckoo]

New rule for the forum: stop linking British newspapers. Could be good. The info is always available in purer form elsewhere.

[BLOW FLY]

He pretty much is one big fat twit.

Kinda like one of those caricatures from decades ago gorging himself on anything that gets in his way.

He is a total slug.

[John The Pessimist]

New rule for the forum: stop linking British newspapers. Could be good. The info is always available in purer form elsewhere.

The vast majority of people source their news via MSM. As we know, markets are based upon sentiment. Therefore links to MSM are a key part of understanding houseprices & the economy.

And I have advocated ignoring DM click bait in the past.......

[Executive Sadman]

Utter lunacy. Here in Cambridgeshire/Huntingdonshire, the fastest growing area in the country, there is no brownfield/post industrial land. Until the 1960s on Cambridge bio-tech boom took off the whole damn area was agrarian. End off. No redundant steel mills, no textile mills, no shipbuilding yards, just field after field after field.

So where exactly does he envisage the land to come from?

[@contradevian]

Utter lunacy. Here in Cambridgeshire/Huntingdonshire, the fastest growing area in the country, there is no brownfield/post industrial land. Until the 1960s on Cambridge bio-tech boom took off the whole damn area was agrarian. End off. No redundant steel mills, no textile mills, no shipbuilding yards, just field after field after field.

So where exactly does he envisage the land to come from?

Well these high tech firms could move to Yorkshire I suppose however I expect they will want to remain close to their academic basis.

We don't have huge amounts of brownfield up here of course and even when someone wanted to build on the site of an old brick works it was vigorously opposed.

As Self Employed Youth will tell you, even old coal mine workings have been landscaped and returned to the 'green belt!'

[The Knimbies who say No]

200k homes is pissing in the wind, and if he thinks I'd move into an overpriced home on an expensive leasehold in a run down part of town with children he can stick it where the sun don't shine.

Not one of the people who I know who espouse the merits of brownfield sites actually live in one themselves, and nor would they as they like their huge gardens too much. Dunno why it's such a stretch to appreciate that others would do likewise given the chance.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Joan of The Tower

[Corruption]

It may be green but with scum like the LIBLABCON in charge doing all they can for banksters, builders and NIMBYs its far from pleasant.

[btl_hater]

200k homes is pissing in the wind, and if he thinks I'd move into an overpriced home on an expensive leasehold in a run down part of town with children he can stick it where the sun don't shine.

Not one of the people who I know who espouse the merits of brownfield sites actually live in one themselves, and nor would they as they like their huge gardens too much. Dunno why it's such a stretch to appreciate that others would do likewise given the chance.

It's depressing how self-centred and selfish most people are.

[winkie]

....building new towns would be a good idea, urban sprawl is not a good thing....there are good reasons why towns and cities have green belt areas.

[billybong]

“We’ve always been a green and pleasant land: and we must stay that way, preserving the best of our countryside and other green spaces. But we’ve also been facing a serious housing shortage in this country, and we’ve got to increase supply in line with demand. I’m determined that we rise to that challenge without building unnecessarily on undeveloped land. The way to do that is to use brownfield better,” he writes.

For sure it's a green and pleasant land for him and his cronies but for most people it's not pleasant and it's getting worse with the ever increasing congestion everywhere etc.

Apart from anything else he's advocating a policy that's already proved to be a failure.

The use brownfield and use it better has been put forward as a policy for decades now - at least since the 80s. Him putting forward brownfield as a solution to the UK's house price problem is a cover up diversionary answer to the real problem and is wasting people's time. He's a time waster.

The brownfield solution has already failed and failed badly and it's time has gone. Pickles advocating such failed policies should resign and the sooner the better.

Edited June 14, 2014 by billybong

[R K]

....building new towns would be a good idea, urban sprawl is not a good thing....there are good reasons why towns and cities have green belt areas.

Just redraw the lines.

The 'green belt' around Manchester is just a few cows giving farmers a mediocre living.

Better used to farm people than cattle.

I wouldn't live in a brownfield central urban site if you paid me let alone pay a developer.

[ex-green]

Pickles wants to confine building & conversions within existing urban boundaries. 'Let them eat brownfield sites'......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10899117/Pickles-keep-Britain-a-green-and-pleasant-land.html

But there is so much space! And houses use so little of it!

Do these people know that??

Like i wrote in my topic domestic buildings use only 1.1 percent of England! If we allow 10 percent more buildings it would use only 0.11 percent!!!

[winkie]

Just redraw the lines.

The 'green belt' around Manchester is just a few cows giving farmers a mediocre living.

Better used to farm people than cattle.

I wouldn't live in a brownfield central urban site if you paid me let alone pay a developer.

No then all would happen is the lines will keep being redrawn.....what would be wrong with living a few miles out in an expansion of a smaller village/town like for example the new satellite towns that were built around London with excellent infrastructure but with great transport connections. The land would not be as expensive and self build plots could be offered to those who wanted them......but the governments today aren't interested in the long-term or are prepared to do anything about affordable liveable family homes anymore.

[billybong]

It's high time the authorities started to issue firm proposals for where they are going to house the predicted extra millions of population with some official predictions of a doubling of the UK's current population over future decades - as well as to cater for current shortages. It's impossible to accommodate such numbers with dozy ideas of brownfield development.

Edited June 14, 2014 by billybong

[ex-green]

No then all would happen is the lines will keep being redrawn.....what would be wrong with living a few miles out in an expansion of a smaller village/town like for example the new satellite towns that were built around London with excellent infrastructure but with great transport connections. The land would not be as expensive and self build plots could be offered to those who wanted them......but the governments today aren't interested in the long-term or are prepared to do anything about affordable liveable family homes anymore.

But then you would use much more land! We just need more homes, we don't need whole new cities with all the other buildings like shops schools hospitals government buildinds offices factories industrial parks retail parks then new roads and motorways and trains to go to these new cities. We just need more houses where people are already living now, for the new generation. People shouldn't be forced to move out of there places of birth near friends and families and jobs to move to a new city.

[billybong]

But then you would use much more land! We just need more homes, we don't need whole new cities with all the other buildings like shops schools hospitals government buildinds offices factories industrial parks retail parks then new roads and motorways and trains to go to these new cities. We just need more houses where people are already living now, for the new generation. People shouldn't be forced to move out of there places of birth near friends and families and jobs to move to a new city.

The predicted millions of extra people will still need all those extra facilities even if the new homes are entirely built around the existing towns and cities.

Building within towns and cities (brownfield development) is a failed policy - it's been tried and failed since at least the 80s although it's fair to say that many towns and cities have green zones within their boundaries that could be built on but they're not "brownfield".

What are the plans - they should be issued.

Edited June 14, 2014 by billybong

[winkie]

But then you would use much more land! We just need more homes, we don't need whole new cities with all the other buildings like shops schools hospitals government buildinds offices factories industrial parks retail parks then new roads and motorways and trains to go to these new cities. We just need more houses where people are already living now, for the new generation. People shouldn't be forced to move out of there places of birth near friends and families and jobs to move to a new city.

.....but new infrastructure creates new jobs and communities.....over the last 35 years we have been building on brownfield gardens, knocking down houses and building flats and squeezing more people into less space because of the increase of land and demand for land in certain places......anyone who wants to and can afford to can live in less for more, choices.....what is required is jobs and new homes in new places with fast and economical transport connections. In fact it takes longer to travel 5 miles by car in a built up urban area than 30 miles outside, not to mention the problem of finding somewhere for the car and the cost to store it.....Nowhere is that far away in our small island, the only problem is the poor, expensive and often underused travel links.....underused because they are either uncomfortable to use, go to the wrong places slow or expensive.

[billybong]

From the telegraph link:

Officials estimate that 90 per cent of brownfield sites should be covered by fast-track planning rules by 2020. That could result in planning permission for 200,000 new homes by the end of the decade, ministers say.

So even if they find enough brownfield sites to build "200,000 new homes by the end of the decade" then that would only meet one about year's supply of homes to meet the officially predicted future population increases.

If that's their only idea for building extra homes then by the end of this decade the UK will have increased the shortage of homes by about one million - on top of any current shortages.

[Dorkins]

So even if they find enough brownfield sites to build "200,000 new homes by the end of the decade" then that would only meet one about year's supply of homes to meet the officially predicted future population increases.

It's typical political class introversion. Politicians work in offices where their staff bring them pieces of paper with big numbers on them telling them how well things are going. They then assume that voters will be impressed by politicians going around the country pointing to pieces of paper with big numbers on them. Bzzzt, empathy fail. Voters will be impressed by there actually being a decent and affordable roof over their own heads or the heads of people they know and care about. Voters don't care about tractor production-type statistical propaganda. If the big numbers are only big enough to fix 1-5% of the problem, people are going to notice this in their daily lives.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Dorkins

[winkie]

It's high time the authorities started to issue firm proposals for where they are going to house the predicted extra millions of population with some official predictions of a doubling of the UK's current population over future decades - as well as to cater for current shortages. It's impossible to accommodate such numbers with dozy ideas of brownfield development.

Industrial land, bedsits and converted high rise office blocks?

[1929crash]

He pretty much is one big fat twit.

Kinda like one of those caricatures from decades ago gorging himself on anything that gets in his way.

He is a total slug.

That's an insult to slugs.

[Eddie_George]

New rule for the forum: stop linking British newspapers. Could be good. The info is always available in purer form elsewhere.

+1

At least ban Mail and Express links, as I for one won't be clicking on them.

[billybong]

Industrial land, bedsits and converted high rise office blocks?

If that's the plan then they should publish it. Make it official and then it could be properly discussed. Then there should be a vote on it.

There's been a lot of development of industrial land and conversions of high rise as well as low rise office blocks, office blocks demolished and changed to new housing, warehouse conversions etc since the 80s. Then there's been all the school playing fields changed to housing and also using any other spare corner of land - some of it converted to bedsits especially in London.

That policy has still failed and the UK still has a shortage of housing (that's what they continually claim to try to explain house prices) and on top of that there's all the extra future population predicted. I dare say that there's still some brownfield to be found and developed but according to the telegraph article even government ministers only expect it to supply 200,000 new homes which is at most the supply needed for one year's predicted increase in UK population.