Do you want to see the house or gardens next door to you developed?
Some Members of Parliament are starting to wake up to the fact that (particularly in Southern Britain) the much lauded preservation of our Greenfields from the rape of development is enabled by building every higher densities on land that was previously gardens.
Greg Clark the Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells has become concerned regarding the issue and he has instituted some research in six planning authorities over applications that have been approved over the past year. These are Bradford, Chelmsford, Guildford, Nottingham and Tunbridge Wells.
Now he has been reasonably fair in the distribution of these authorities although he could have thrown in one from the South West and at least one major city or conurbation to give a completely fair analysis.
The results were that the authorities are achieving the 72% of new housing development on ‘Brownfield’ land that the Government is so proud of, but due to the lack of sufficient redundant industrial land, two thirds (i.e. 66%) of the Brownfield development is taking place on ‘previously residential land’. This means either backland development on rear gardens or knocking down houses and building blocks of flats.
Mr Clark is now promoting a Private Members Bill to alter planning legislation and prevent ‘garden grabbing’.
He stands absolutely no chance of succeeding with this measure but he will gain some publicity for the situation that is overtaking all residential communities.
There should be a proper debate over the issue of housing dealing with both the level of requirement and its distribution. However at the moment we have the Government deciding on the level of requirement without engaging the public in any real education of why these houses are needed and where they should be built. Next you are getting the distribution decided by the new unelected Regional Assemblies.
It is a mess and given the long-term impact of housing issues it deserves far more open treatment. I am sure once people are made aware of all the arguments affecting housing they would then accept ideas that at least would enable development to take place without the bitter opposition that currently takes place.
Because if you accept the need for housing and you don’t want to see currently undeveloped land built on then you have to accept increasing densities in your neighbourhood. Alternatively take another idea that has been floated recently and use areas of farmland, develop the majority of this for new woodlands and public open space areas and a small part for new high quality housing.
Stay tuned to Property Development Fortunes...
Greg Clark the Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells has become concerned regarding the issue and he has instituted some research in six planning authorities over applications that have been approved over the past year. These are Bradford, Chelmsford, Guildford, Nottingham and Tunbridge Wells.
Now he has been reasonably fair in the distribution of these authorities although he could have thrown in one from the South West and at least one major city or conurbation to give a completely fair analysis.
The results were that the authorities are achieving the 72% of new housing development on ‘Brownfield’ land that the Government is so proud of, but due to the lack of sufficient redundant industrial land, two thirds (i.e. 66%) of the Brownfield development is taking place on ‘previously residential land’. This means either backland development on rear gardens or knocking down houses and building blocks of flats.
Mr Clark is now promoting a Private Members Bill to alter planning legislation and prevent ‘garden grabbing’.
He stands absolutely no chance of succeeding with this measure but he will gain some publicity for the situation that is overtaking all residential communities.
There should be a proper debate over the issue of housing dealing with both the level of requirement and its distribution. However at the moment we have the Government deciding on the level of requirement without engaging the public in any real education of why these houses are needed and where they should be built. Next you are getting the distribution decided by the new unelected Regional Assemblies.
It is a mess and given the long-term impact of housing issues it deserves far more open treatment. I am sure once people are made aware of all the arguments affecting housing they would then accept ideas that at least would enable development to take place without the bitter opposition that currently takes place.
Because if you accept the need for housing and you don’t want to see currently undeveloped land built on then you have to accept increasing densities in your neighbourhood. Alternatively take another idea that has been floated recently and use areas of farmland, develop the majority of this for new woodlands and public open space areas and a small part for new high quality housing.
Stay tuned to Property Development Fortunes...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home