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

[Deleted User]

varghesejim wrote: »

there are planning laws which any developer should adhere to(at least to an extend)

However, how can any London commuter belt expect the peace and quiet of the countryside? Change is constant.

Not peace and quiet.. but as you get further out, the infrastructure becomes a lot smaller. Near me, most roads are either built on top of 1400 year old Roman roads (and quite narrow for the amount of traffic they get) or country roads.

Sure, they've build bypasses but as you have to pass inside towns/villages, there is no way of stopping massive bottlenecks. Building more here (and they certainly want to) will only make it worse.

Why do you want to move somewhere that is over-capacity anyway?

moneyistooshorttomention

It is indeed one of those (very) difficult questions that arises in an overpopulated (and getting more so .....:() country.

There are various questions that just cant be (happily) resolved all round where there are just so many people needing whatever-it-is-that-they-personally-need.

I can quite understand:

- the people wanting affordable homes

- the allotment holders (because they have spent years getting their plots exactly as they want them and its clear the replacement sites they are offered are often very Bad Land ones)

- the current residents of an area = because they know that its highly unlikely there will be the necessary extra facilities (eg healthcare etc) to cater for the extra people

I feel very sorry for everyone in these situations and really don't have any answer myself as to how to deal with all these extra people over and above what an area can support and they will have a decent lifestyle.

There IS only one answer, ie cut the over-population and I really cant see how this is to happen (ie when some people are selfish enough to have more than 2 children on the one hand and other people understandably want to live in a better area than "Their Own" on the other hand).

I don't think any of us know what to do - because there simply doesn't seem to be a way to eradicate the Selfishness Gene from the human race overnight and, unless and until there is, then most people will try and get what they personally want for themselves regardless:(.

I wish I could see an answer to this - as I've been shoved out of my own Home Area by that Selfishness Gene.

varghesejim

AndyT678 wrote: »

Don't forget to make divorce illegal too!

Great idea! This will free up many homes. And make children live with their parents until they get married. Or even after that. Any vacant bedrooms in anyone's homes should be taxed to max.

DRP

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It's often not the aesthetic of new homes that is the problem, but the impact of 1000s adults, hundreds of kids, 1000s of cars all arriving in an area without consideration of how that will sit within the local community.

BTW - without immigration, our population would be shrinking

which is even worse than the 'over-crowding' that some perceive to be the problem now.

SailorSam

martinsurrey wrote: »

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.

A brownfield site is not always one which is contaminated with dangerous chemicals that takes years to clean up. Take one example Liverpool Docks, or perhaps London Docklands, much of it was probably no more contaminated and needed no more cleaning up than the allotments in the Op link, and both have become popular housing developments built on them.

moneyistooshorttomention

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Why do you want to move somewhere that is over-capacity anyway?

There is an obvious answer to that. That is that people who want to move to an area that is over-capacity anyway don't see it as being that way in all probability. As an incomer to the area I am now living in I have been on the receiving end of comments to the effect of "There aren't enough doctors/dentists/etc here anyway and now YOU want one too..." and I do understand and point out that I've been "kicked out" of my own Home Area in effect (courtesy of over-population basically) and I sympathise and don't know what to do...

My Home Area was nice (once!) and "at capacity" and then other people moved there too and it no longer is.

The thing is that the incomers to my Home Area very probably genuinely don't see that there isn't room for them to be there as well:( and so they move there....:(

The incomers think "Isnt this a nice area? We like it" and those of us who are there anyway think "Yep...we can see that" and can also see that the incomers (in the main) don't realise they are spoiling it for us by coming there.

The problem has to be dealt with at source and its not at all clear just how to do so.

....and then those of us whose own area has been spoilt move on and some of the locals in the area we move to regard their own area as being spoilt in turn.

What do you do? What DO you do?

lisyloo

which is even worse than the 'over-crowding' that some perceive to be the problem now.

It's chronic underinvestment that is the issue.
There are plenty more crowded places that do fine (like hong kong, bangkok etc). Even London is not that crowded relatively speaking.

However we need road, public transport, hospital, doctors, dentists, schools etc. to support the extra popultaion.

moneyistooshorttomention

DRP wrote: »

which is even worse than the 'over-crowding' that some perceive to be the problem now.

Why?.................

A shrinking population is necessary...so what is the problem with that?

kimbyanne

I recently moved to a new build development in a quiet village.

I found some of the planning applications online just after we moved so was able to view the documents, responses, comments, etc. I was pretty shocked by the responses, not one was positive or in favour of the development.

It all seemed to be about not wanting younger people in the village (its mainly dominated by older people), not wanting "outsiders" to move to their village, not wanting social housing build, not enough jobs in the area so everyone would claim benefits, etc. I remember one response was from a man who lives just across the field from where the houses were build and his concern was the type of people who would move to these houses would affect the value of his property....

No one cares about the fact these houses enabled younger people from the area to stay in the area or that the developer has made some major improvements to the surrounding areas.

martinsurrey

SailorSam wrote: »

A brownfield site is not always one which is contaminated with dangerous chemicals that takes years to clean up. Take one example Liverpool Docks, or perhaps London Docklands, much of it was probably no more contaminated and needed no more cleaning up than the allotments in the Op link, and both have become popular housing developments built on them.

are you kidding!?!

Docks are right next to the waterways (which means everything is tightly regulated), and have high concentration of heavy metals, asbestos and huge amounts of below ground infrastructure (high pressure gas).

London Docklands regeneration is now over 35 years old (LDDC was founded in 1980)

http://cognitionlandandwater.com/news.php?id=69

there's a link to one of the companies doing the current phase of land remediation there, (and that is just a tiny area), read what they are having to do.