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

Classification Of Gardens As Brownfield Sites

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6744797.stm

Homes are springing up in back yards as the property boom continues. MPs are fighting for a bill to curtail the practice, but does the squeeze on land mean gardens are endangered?

So there you are living in leafy suburbia, children playing in lovingly tended gardens and along comes a property developer. Sadly, the only trees he's interested in are the ones that go to make banknotes. And he has a plan for that house for sale next door.

This is happening because the law allows gardens to be classified as "brownfield" sites, in the same category as former industrial and commercial property. Councils have targets to meet for new houses and for brownfield building - thus gardens are being lost, the campaigners say.

Now the Land Use Bill plans to stamp out garden grabbing by allowing local councils to avoid designating gardens as brownfield. The private members' bill is due its second reading on Friday.

Which is a jolly good job if you happen to have a house with a generous garden in leafy suburbia.

I did cut and paste the text, but you really have to click through to get the utopian, nay Elysian photo of the verdant suburban dream threatened by the nasty people looking for somewhere to live.

Edited by Timm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6744797.stm

I did cut and paste the text, but you really have to click through to get the utopian, nay Elysian photo of the verdant suburban dream threatened by the nasty people looking for somewhere to live.

I think you missed the point. It's out of character to put a high rise flat complex in the same road as say, bungalows when you could create the high rise flat complex elsewhere. Don't get me wrong here, I'm sitting on a larger than average plot that any developer would love to get his hands on but you know the old saying, NIMBY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other side of my town somehow a large development got through on a previously green tree lined pretty street. The new block is 4 stories high, dark, ugly, opressive, shadows the whole street.

Any sane person would have to admit that having that kind of thing built next to you is of course not nice. Its not even nice for the people who stump up 250k for one of these ghastly flats. The real tragedy is that with some planning and thought, larger blocks can be slotted in nicely - over the road from me they've done just that, wacked in 12 properties where two detached houses used to be.

Saying this is unfair on people who just want "somewhere to live" is typical HPC hysteria. I thought this site had a "there's no undersupply" doctrine anyway.

I dont hold weight to any criticism of NIMBYism because we all know we'd feel the same, its not actually nice to have the character of your area changed, especially if it changes the reasons you moved there. Guess its easy to criticise when its not you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any sane person would have to admit that having that kind of thing built next to you is of course not nice. Its not even nice for the people who stump up 250k for one of these ghastly flats. The real tragedy is that with some planning and thought, larger blocks can be slotted in nicely - over the road from me they've done just that, wacked in 12 properties where two detached houses used to be.

Saying this is unfair on people who just want "somewhere to live" is typical HPC hysteria. I thought this site had a "there's no undersupply" doctrine anyway.

I dont hold weight to any criticism of NIMBYism because we all know we'd feel the same, its not actually nice to have the character of your area changed, especially if it changes the reasons you moved there. Guess its easy to criticise when its not you though.

No, I’m not actually a fan of building flats at 80 per hectare on backland plots in the suburbs. It's not nice for either the new or the existing community. It's probably less "sustainable" than more sympathetic treatments too. Many local authorities are moving towards a more balanced treatment of this type of site, with the aim of retaining the original property, and avoiding overdevelopment. But the fact remains that there is an enormous amount of suburban space given over to gardens. I simply thought the article was sensationalist. Unfortunately, so was my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me that this is being hyped as a new thing. It has been going on for decades I reckon. Infact when I first bought in 96 I was toying with self build, and toyed with this again in 2003. All the self build magazines since 96 highly reccomend touting owners of houses with large gardens where the garden's end backs onto an existing road to offer to buy 1/2 the garden or more to build your own house.

The Nimbys probably wont, the MEwers probably will!!! lol.

We visited friends in York last year who had a lovely 3 bed new build terrace with decent garden, along with three other adjoining terraces, and parking and garage block for all four houses. They had a rown of 6 old terraces infront and anohter row of terraces at the end of their garden but at 2 stories lower level due to a hill.

What had happened was a builder / developer bought the middle of 7 terraces which all had 200ft gardens, and all 75% unused and overgrown or dumping grounds. He offer the other 6 owners a very good price to buy the end 150ft garden of each. They where happy, cash in the bank and still 50ft of garben they could use and maintain easier.

He then applied for planning permission, was granted, and knocked down his house for access road and turned the 7 150ft plots into 4 large terraces with 50ft gardens each, parking a garage block.

Was really rather nice, a big 3 bed terraced house, all double rooms, 1 ensuite, big lounge diner and good sized kitchen. Felt more like a detached inside.

Anyway, what he did was great, he made money, 4 people got nice new homes, a six exisiting owners got managable gardens and cash to spend withoot mewing i guess.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's what we get for not wanting to build in the countryside.

Quite, countryside campaigners have no problem with our towns and cities being over developed, that's why they're quite happy to see children's playing fields, back gardens and even allotments packed out with high density dwellings. Try and do something with a worthless unused bit of scrub land or some former MOD site and they will eat you alive.

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.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • 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.