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

varghesejim

martinsurrey wrote: »

exactly

Plans submitted to build 450 houses on the edge of a new build estate in Reading - Jan 2012

http://www2.basingstoke.gov.uk/DocumentViewer/?DocumentClassCode=DC&Folder1Reference=BDB/75761

refused by local council

appeal refused by council

appeal allowed by secretary of state - September 13

that's 2 years of work to get planning (not to forget the expense of doing it all!)

http://www2.basingstoke.gov.uk/DocumentViewer/?DocumentClassCode=DC&Folder1Reference=BDB/75761

Is there any way for potential first time buyers to put up the pressure on council to build more homes?

lincroft1710

This post is from a MSEr who doesn't want the area near her rented flat to be developed.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5259200

Sammydog

I don't have a problem with building more houses but I do think that plans should be sympathetic to the existing area.


Lots of villages near here have now melded into one large housing estate over the past 15yrs - promises from the different councils that this would never happen were swept under the carpet so now there's no community, no defined areas (if it wasn't for the 'welcome to ....' signs, you wouldn't know you'd entered a different village) just lots of houses, roads jam packed with cars on their way to the huge supermarket which has replaced the village shops (converted to apartments ...) and no room in the doctors surgery because as others have mentioned, the infrastructure that doesn't make someone money is never put in place.


Build by all means, but plan it properly rather than just filling the quotas.

moneyistooshorttomention

Sammydog wrote: »

Lots of villages near here have now melded into one large housing estate over the past 15yrs - promises from the different councils that this would never happen were swept under the carpet so now there's no community, no defined areas (if it wasn't for the 'welcome to ....' signs, you wouldn't know you'd entered a different village) just lots of houses, roads jam packed with cars on their way to the huge supermarket which has replaced the village shops (converted to apartments ...) and no room in the doctors surgery because as others have mentioned, the infrastructure that doesn't make someone money is never put in place.


Build by all means, but plan it properly rather than just filling the quotas.

Sounds like you're describing my Home Area:(:mad::(

fairy_lights

varghesejim wrote: »

Most of the places where the current houses stand was green at some point.

Of course they were, but that doesn't mean we should build over every field available. New developments should include parks and decent sized gardens but sadly they seldom do.

eddddy

lisyloo wrote: »

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

ringo_24601 wrote: »

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.
...

varghesejim wrote: »

People want to live in a place with good doctors, schools, shops, employers, entertainment etc. This kind of places tend to get full. What is the alternative? Close the door once in?

The developers will be required to enter into a section 106 planning agreement.

This means the developer has to pay the council for the improved transport, schools, healthcare and general infrastructure that will be needed as a result of the development.

(Some developers argue that councils take advantage of this - and demand more money that they actually spend on infrastructure.)

Here's an example list of the infrastructure that a developer has to contribute towards: https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/planning-and-development/planning-obligations/S106-planning-agreements/

[Deleted User]

varghesejim wrote: »

People want to live in a place with good doctors, schools, shops, employers, entertainment etc. This kind of places tend to get full. What is the alternative? Close the door once in?

Build more new towns, rather than 'fill in the gaps' between the current ones.

I find it laughable that you might think house prices would go down if we built more homes

Piggywiggy

What I've noticed in my area is the developers generally get to build what and where they want, but if someone with a large garden thinks wants to build 1 house on it the council object, I wonder why ...... £££££

missbiggles1

As a small country we need to get away from the idea that living in a house is the aim and living in a flat is only a temporary stop en route to that. In most other European countries (often with far more space than the UK) apartment living is much more common, whether you're a young couple, a family or a retired person.

That's the only way we're going to square the circle of providing more homes but leaving ourselves some space in which to enjoy life.

daveyjp

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.

In order to redevelop these areas millions of pounds of public sector funding was required, without it development was not profitable.