Sunday, July 22, 2007
Vested interests want less and no more houses
Targets for new homes 'will raise flood risk'
I am sure some will mention that more houses are bad for global warming, crime, etc... how can these people be sooooo boooooooring
Posted by confused76 @ 07:41 PM (578 views)
12 thoughts on “Vested interests want less and no more houses”
Add a comment
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
enuii says:
This all depends where you live, just imagine what London would be like if it were hit by flooding similar to that threatening Gloucester tonight. More property means more roofs, roads, patios and driveways for runoff and greater risk of flash flooding to run down into riverside areas chocked with Barratesque developments. The victorians and edwardians weren’t daft which is why you see very few houses of this era next to rivers, where I live adjacent to the river mersey on side of the road (the higher side) has all the older houses and the other side (the lower side) has all the 1950’s onwards housing on the former water meadows.
Incidentally there are also thousands of flats currently being built adjacent to or near the river of which at least 40% remain unsold or empty years after the blocks have been completed so I don’t really think there is an actual shortage of property if you just want somewhere to live. Brown can spout as much as he wants about building affordable/social housing from 2010 onwards but in reality if a property crash/recession takes hold of the economy in within the next 2 years he will probably not need to bother.
Mikexx says:
Perhaps I’m being silly here, but unless we increase the number of immigrant or increase birth rates, what has “targets for new homes” got to do with “worsen traffic congestion”?
paul says:
A steal at £340k for a two bedroom ground floor flat!
I’m sure the deluge of enquiries will subside, even if the floodwater doesn’t!!!
david20040_0 says:
So that will mean less property will be built resulting in higher house prices then.
enuii says:
An expensive water front property is little use if you cannot get insurance on it and if you cannot get or afford the insurance you will not get a mortgage, catch 22 then methinks.
Perhaps waterfront properties could fill the groundfloors of their apartments with concrete to provide flood protection to the first floor upwards!
paul says:
“So that will mean less property will be built resulting in higher house prices then.”
Yes, that would happen, but only if the current boom was a result of supply and demand issues. It’s just cheap credit, and if you don’t believe me, look at the US and Japan’s experience.
As it is, it will just add to the downward spiral of current prices.
paolo88888 says:
Surely there could be a consensus on “Greenbelt exchange” – planning permission given for housing development on green belt that is on high ground if the same area of flood plane were designated as green belt and any flood damaged properties on it cleared. Flood plane is fine for recreation and the aesthetic appeal of green spaces. Near where I live there is some high ground within half mile of M25 and a rail station sufficient for several thousand houses. Currently it is used for arable crops. But we are building on the flood plane within a few miles.
Freewheelin Franklin says:
It’s not a conspiracy – it’s a simple planning principle. Centuries ago our ancestors left areas around their towns undeveloped as ‘flood plains’ – they knew the water had to go somewhere and rather than build on land prone to flooding they built on higher ground.
Now clever developers realise they can build on flood prone areas by raising the level of the land. However the water still has to go somewhere – so rather than go into the pockets of low lying land where it always goes it’s forced elsewhere. Now the developers don’t care because that’s someone else’s problem – but you might if it’s your home that gets flooded.
What is needed is a push to ensure that empty brownfield sites – ones already concreted over – are used for housing. There is a bank of land held back by developers – and we should penalise those who don’t utilise it – or at worst use compulsory purchase orders to take it into public ownership and sell it on on the condition that housing of the type most in demand is built there.
What I would like to see is a survey of all the unused brownfield land in the UK and a justification of why it’s lying fallow at a time when there is a shortage of certain types of housing (ie not flats)
Dandare500 says:
“Currently it is used for arable crops”
With food prices going through the roof, is this sensible? Surely eating is as important as housing. Don’t forget floods kill crops too, even if global warming is boring! Tax returns too are boring, but must be dealt with nevertheless.
Orwell says:
I don’t see a problem with building in flood plains. It isn’t going to be your average Telegraph reader drooling over their £ half million house who are going to haver to pay for the flood prevention schemes after all is it? They think tax is optional to pay for the infrastructure they use anyway.
Mark says:
Hi All
You only need to take a drive around ellesmere port and see empty factories and units everywhere an what are the council doing? Building more on brownfield sites, they could build housing…………….
I have a piece of land in Neston i have been refused 3 times for various dodgy reasons give me permission it is one less house…the planners are dickheads simple…
confused76 says:
I am not sure we really need flood plains… does Netherlands have them? They – not us – have a serious water dannger, and they seem to have used the land in an optimal way. Should we copy their solutions?