Tories scrap house building targets, 'must protect greenbelt and do what locals want'

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's a myth.

A quick check of the ONS website will show you the projected population graphs by age all the way through to 2100. There is a surge of population building now that is even larger than the boomers. Some of it is immigration led, but we're also in the middle of a baby boom as well.

We are, you lot arent.

Keith

I had a row at my local planning meeting, there is a very slim strip of land near my home which the locals use for walking dogs and for children to play. The local affordable housing have been granted a lease and want to build 53 semi detached houses on it. I raised the point that if this town is running out of land as the council claim then surely they should be building high density rather than nice little semis for those that need it. The council said this wasn't an option!

The scheme was given permission, but hopefully this change is in time to stop 5500 homes being built on the greenbelt to the north of it.

Lance

Why should we cover the South of our country in concrete to house millions of 'refugees' 'foreign students who never go home' 'chaves on the dole' and to stop East Europeans living in trees. Less people not more concrete!

lynzpower

:A

fc123 wrote: »

.....sounds like a NIMBY Uptopia.
Personally, I just don't understand the mindset of people who want zero change....for everything to stay in a timewarp. They are usually the same ones who moan about the decay and lack of choice on their local High St whilst driving to a Tesco once a week and shopping basics like books/DVD's online etc.

Things change, lifestyles change and we adapt.

By that reasoning if that big tesco wasnt built then people would still use smaller traders and town centres would be vibrant.

Nature doesn't adapt though does it, it just suffers. Air quality suffers, biodiversity suffers.

Was watching some parliamentary channel stuff about how the UK has failed dismally in meeting basic biodiversity targets. Shocking really, no one seem to give a toss.

A hopeless situation, if you do what you always do ( building without regard for anything but capitalism) then you get what you have always got ( denigration of natural resources)

fc123

lynzpower wrote: »

We should also be looking to convert shops into homes as is v popular in the Netherlands, something that is so so rare but boarded up shops just blight the area ( yet still they build more, go figure)

They don't grant change of use to resi as it affects 'local employment' in that a former business premises goes resi and so no business rates ...which are far higher than CT, a resi unit can't 'employ' anyone (it just houses someone).
Councils are about a decade behind on changes to how we work and changes in use can take years. I have written before on the ex LL of ours who bought up whole swathes of land along the Thames and fought for planning for 15 years. The council kept saying that all the derelict industrial buildings would be restored and create employment...except the dock/river work ran out in the 70's.
It too 30 years to go from derelict industrial to resi.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

We are, you lot arent.

Actually we are too.

Population started rising some years ago now and is now at a 30 year high.

And this trend is projected to continue.

The latest set of 2006-based population projections for Scotland produced by the General Register Office for Scotland show the total population of Scotland rising from 5.12 million in 2006 to 5.37 million in 2031.

lynzpower

:A

fc123 wrote: »

They don't grant change of use to resi as it affects 'local employment' in that a former business premises goes resi and so no business rates ...which are far higher than CT, a resi unit can't 'employ' anyone (it just houses someone).
Councils are about a decade behind on changes to how we work and changes in use can take years. I have written before on the ex LL of ours who bought up whole swathes of land along the Thames and fought for planning for 15 years. The council kept saying that all the derelict industrial buildings would be restored and create employment...except the dock/river work ran out in the 70's.
It too 30 years to go from derelict industrial to resi.

Your example just proves 100% that this approach doesnt work.

fc123

lynzpower wrote: »

:A

By that reasoning if that big tesco wasnt built then people would still use smaller traders and town centres would be vibrant.

Nature doesn't adapt though does it, it just suffers. Air quality suffers, biodiversity suffers.

Was watching some parliamentary channel stuff about how the UK has failed dismally in meeting basic biodiversity targets. Shocking really, no one seem to give a toss.

A hopeless situation, if you do what you always do ( building without regard for anything but capitalism) then you get what you have always got ( denigration of natural resources)

It's a bit chicken and egg though....did the Tesco kill the town or did the customer by choosing to shop in Tesco?

I do write as someone who has been an Indie retailer for over 2 decades and ended up with a 'Museum shop' for visitors in it's last year....with ''oooh luvverly shop innit, we don't have shops like this back home'' and so on. I was always there doing a good job but the customer ran with the corps for the better deals on their basics...and left the specialist niche stuff to us...and with overheads going crazily up up up (due to the Starbucks effect) it wasn't viable any longer.

So we shut....and cue inbox full of e-mails.

Change is inevitable and we then decided to run with the pack so I now trade in a totally different way (within a corp/chain environment) as that's where the money is nowadays. I could have stood there wringing my hands and bleating about changing customer habits and how it wasn't fair but wouldn't have paid the bills.

Biodiversity? I am not clued up enough to debate about it but I still feel that it comes down to consumers behaviour and how we choose to spend.

Green belt building? We have stacks of land that is no longer viable to farm (could that be due to Tescos too?) so why not buils on it?

fc123

Lance wrote: »

Why should we cover the South of our country in concrete to house millions of 'refugees' 'foreign students who never go home' 'chaves on the dole' and to stop East Europeans living in trees. Less people not more concrete!

The world is for everyone.......it's just random chance as to where one is born.

Running_Horse

Look at a satellite map of Dartford. All the Thames Gateway blocks of BTL flats have now joined the town to Gravesend by infilling all the villages in between. Gravesend is very nearly joined to London.

We are going to have to make some very tough decisions in the next decade or so about what kind of homes and country we want to live in. As most demand seems to be coming from London, I would draw a boundary at the M25 and tell London it can build whatever it wants within it, but nothing beyond.