Why don't people allow necessary houses to be build?

varghesejim

I am a priced out serial renter.

Referring to this link:

http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Campaigners-launch-bid-prevent-500-homes-built/story-26337537-detail/story.html

People protesting allotments to be replaced with homes.

There may be many reasons to protest against a development. But the matter of fact is we are in short of homes. We need to build homes where it can be build with least environmental impact.

In this case 100 allotments have to be replaced with 500 homes. And the council will get 21 million from the developer. The council will reallocate the allotments elsewhere in the area. Looks like win-win situation all the way except an inconvenience to allotment holders.

The council received 30 letters against the development from this campaign. Not even a single letter for the development from the many hundreds of unfortunate souls who don't have a home in the area. Granted, they might not be able to buy from the same development, but more homes will generally keep the prices to manageable levels so that people will get a chance to buy.

I think there need to be a campaign from first time buyers to apply pressure for more building of homes. Importantly voices need to be heard from non-home owners in government in such scenarios where there is protest against new development.

shortcrust

I agree. Build build build, I say!

Melaniep101

Not read the article, but I assume that people who have paid good money to buy a property in a good location, don't particularly want blocks of flats/houses springing up all around them. And if this allotment patch is part of the community, there's much to be lost from plonking a housing estate on it.

If you'd worked all your life to buy somewhere, would you want a housing estate in your back garden?

DRP

shortcrust wrote: »

I agree. Build build build, I say!

Certainly, but Not In My Back Yard !

[Deleted User]

I'd be happy if they built more new houses near me, if they also..

1) increased school capacity
2) hired some more GPs
3) Build some extra roads to support the extra traffic

They won't though.. we'll all just suffer.

Many areas are already bulging at the seams, but councils want to build build build..

Remember, 500 homes probably means an extra £600-700,000 in revenue to the council per year

SailorSam

Build; build; build.
Great idea but use up the brownfield sites first.

maninthestreet

Why don't we address the causes of the increased demand for housing - like immigration???

libf

maninthestreet wrote: »

Why don't we address the causes of the increased demand for housing - like immigration???

Without immigration we'd have no laborers to build the houses!

missbiggles1

varghesejim wrote: »

I am a priced out serial renter.

Referring to this link:

http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Campaigners-launch-bid-prevent-500-homes-built/story-26337537-detail/story.html

People protesting allotments to be replaced with homes.

There may be many reasons to protest against a development. But the matter of fact is we are in short of homes. We need to build homes where it can be build with least environmental impact.

In this case 100 allotments have to be replaced with 500 homes. And the council will get 21 million from the developer. The council will reallocate the allotments elsewhere in the area. Looks like win-win situation all the way except an inconvenience to allotment holders.

The council received 30 letters against the development from this campaign. Not even a single letter for the development from the many hundreds of unfortunate souls who don't have a home in the area. Granted, they might not be able to buy from the same development, but more homes will generally keep the prices to manageable levels so that people will get a chance to buy.

I think there need to be a campaign from first time buyers to apply pressure for more building of homes. Importantly voices need to be heard from non-home owners in government in such scenarios where there is protest against new development.

Except that it sounds as if the council doesn't actually own the land.

martinsurrey

SailorSam wrote: »

Build; build; build.
Great idea but use up the brownfield sites first.

It can take up to 10 years and millions of £'s to get a brownfield site ready to build on, by the time you've done site surveys, land re-mediation, relocated industrial mains supplies, all the while having to work around the residents that already border the site (as most brownfield sites are near existing residential).

Add on the monitoring responsibilities and its a very time consuming (expensive) and complex form of building.

While I'm all for building on them, they are not the silver bullet.

DRP

maninthestreet wrote: »

Why don't we address the causes of the increased demand for housing - like immigration???

and reproduction GRRR