Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Time for some sanity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6744797.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6744797.stm
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Garden grabbing!
- Thread starter Nemesis
- Start date
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
The simplistic choice is build homes on gardens where houses are already or build homes in green areas where no houses exist.... I know which I'd choose and it wouldn't be the second option.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
In my local town a nasty development has been given the go ahead in a garden - a former burgage plot. It was covered in trees which have been (allegedly...) illegally felled but the local authority is dragging its heels over that matter.
The land is part of a green slope on top of which the town buildings sits as a 'ribbon' development. It is part of the town setting.
The land is in a Conservation Area.
The land is NOT designated for building. There is other land designated for that - yes green sites but low grade farmland on the fringe of the town.
The land is behind a listed building, and building within the curtilage will affect its setting.
Access to the land will entail the demolition of a listed wall (a great deal of arguing has now made the developer apply for LBC for its demolition - although part of it has already gone with the informal agreement of the Conservation Officer...)
The local authority has, however, given the nasty development of totally out of character blocks of flats (opposed by everyone including the Town Council, EH and SAVE) the go-ahead as they say it's brownfield land and so nothing they can do to stop the development!
Hmmmm.
Buying up a nice period building, and demolishing it in order to cram in as many flats as possible on the site and in many cases certainly making the quality of life less pleasant for neighbours and neighbourhoods is surely not what was intended when the government promoted reclamation of 'brownfield' land for development?
The land is part of a green slope on top of which the town buildings sits as a 'ribbon' development. It is part of the town setting.
The land is in a Conservation Area.
The land is NOT designated for building. There is other land designated for that - yes green sites but low grade farmland on the fringe of the town.
The land is behind a listed building, and building within the curtilage will affect its setting.
Access to the land will entail the demolition of a listed wall (a great deal of arguing has now made the developer apply for LBC for its demolition - although part of it has already gone with the informal agreement of the Conservation Officer...)
The local authority has, however, given the nasty development of totally out of character blocks of flats (opposed by everyone including the Town Council, EH and SAVE) the go-ahead as they say it's brownfield land and so nothing they can do to stop the development!
Hmmmm.
Buying up a nice period building, and demolishing it in order to cram in as many flats as possible on the site and in many cases certainly making the quality of life less pleasant for neighbours and neighbourhoods is surely not what was intended when the government promoted reclamation of 'brownfield' land for development?
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
Nemesis said:Buying up a nice period building, and demolishing it in order to cram in as many flats as possible on the site and in many cases certainly making the quality of life less pleasant for neighbours and neighbourhoods is surely not what was intended when the government promoted reclamation of 'brownfield' land for development?
This is true, and is the responsibility of the local councils to stop.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Mine is convinced that if they do then they will lose at appeal.
I have some sympathy for that point of view. It's expensive to keep contesting applications which bring an inquiry for them.
More clarity is required and I hope this bill gets the go-ahead.
I have some sympathy for that point of view. It's expensive to keep contesting applications which bring an inquiry for them.
More clarity is required and I hope this bill gets the go-ahead.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
This is a knotty problem, and I find it difficult to come down unequivocally on either side.
I entirely agree that cramming more and more housing into existing residential areas is undesirable, and reduces the quality of life in those areas. (I'm leaving aside the question of demolishing a listed building because - I sincerely hope - it's not what normally happens).
On the other hand, we need more housing. And if we don't squeeze it into existing residential envelopes, then we have to allow cities, towns and villages to expand, eating up more countryside.
OK - there are genuine brownfield sites that can be exploited, but these are a finite commodity, and often carry problems of their own in being converted for residential use (pollution, change of use, etc.).
On balance, I think the answer is to allow a reasonable amount of infilling, so long as it's Not In My Back Yard.
I entirely agree that cramming more and more housing into existing residential areas is undesirable, and reduces the quality of life in those areas. (I'm leaving aside the question of demolishing a listed building because - I sincerely hope - it's not what normally happens).
On the other hand, we need more housing. And if we don't squeeze it into existing residential envelopes, then we have to allow cities, towns and villages to expand, eating up more countryside.
OK - there are genuine brownfield sites that can be exploited, but these are a finite commodity, and often carry problems of their own in being converted for residential use (pollution, change of use, etc.).
On balance, I think the answer is to allow a reasonable amount of infilling, so long as it's Not In My Back Yard.
Taff in Glaws
Member
- Messages
- 72
- Location
- GLOUCESTER
A large group of residents including myself have recently thwarted plans to build a multi occupancy unit on a undeveloped small strip of land around our victorian square. The developer claimed to have an altruistic motive for increasing the housing stock and enabling first time buyers to step on the property ladder. :roll: It's strange that he has bought no land in his own leafy Cotswold Village and tried to develop his ideas there. :wink:
The Planning dept. has agreed that he can build a 3-4 bedroom property on the land that must be in keeping with the adjacent victorian terraces though I hear through the grapevine they had to agree summit to avoid losing an appeal.
The Planning dept. has agreed that he can build a 3-4 bedroom property on the land that must be in keeping with the adjacent victorian terraces though I hear through the grapevine they had to agree summit to avoid losing an appeal.
alice
Member
- Messages
- 247
- Location
- 1 foot in Texas, 1 foot in Suffolk
Hmm... this isn't anything new in a historical sense. It's always been more cost efficient to build on land that is already developed and the laws that prohibited denser housing are relatively new. It seems that every Victorian house I've looked at has either later-built addition or cottages (in the states they're called mother-in-law houses) added to the back gardens.
This is something each Council will have to judge on an individual case, based on the neighborhood and what is being built. Personally, I'd rather see a MIL house built in the back of someone's housing estate garden than see farmland and pasture turned into estates.
alice
This is something each Council will have to judge on an individual case, based on the neighborhood and what is being built. Personally, I'd rather see a MIL house built in the back of someone's housing estate garden than see farmland and pasture turned into estates.
alice
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
Taff in Glaws said:A large group of residents including myself have recently thwarted plans to build a multi occupancy unit on a undeveloped small strip of land around our victorian square. The developer claimed to have an altruistic motive for increasing the housing stock and enabling first time buyers to step on the property ladder. :roll: It's strange that he has bought no land in his own leafy Cotswold Village and tried to develop his ideas there. :wink:
The Planning dept. has agreed that he can build a 3-4 bedroom property on the land that must be in keeping with the adjacent victorian terraces though I hear through the grapevine they had to agree summit to avoid losing an appeal.
If they were going to lose an appeal that means that in terms of planning law there were no reasons to refuse the application.
As for not building in his Cotswold village instead, where is the real demand for housing greater? Don't give me a lot of nonsense about how millions of young families all want to live in the countryside in the countryside because although they may well want to - rural idyll as sold by suburban developers and William Morris - it's highly unlikely they'll all have jobs on the land and will instead be driving to Cheltenahm, Gloucester, Bristol etc for work, shopping, entertainment and everything else, so it has little to do with maintaining the life of villages as anything other than a stage set for London weekenders and the editor of Country Life to fool themselves and say "how marvellous" about)
Which is the most sustainable location for people to be living - a village in the sticks with (probably) no facilities, or an established town?
By all means, let's have a Morrisian News From Nowhere revolution, but without it it is cynical in the extreme to suggest that new housing should not usually be built in larger population centres in preference to locations with exceptionally limited acces to services.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Sidebar piece from this morning's Telegraph:
Tories try to save gardens from builders
The Conservatives will call today for the closure of a loophole which allows developers to build new homes on gardens because such areas are classed as "brownfield" sites.
A Private Member's Bill from Caroline Spelman, a Tory front bencher, will allow councils to block or restrict developments on gardens and the sites of former homes.
"Across the country there is growing concern about gardens disappearing under concrete, regardless of local opinion. This is the effect of Labour's planning rules," Miss Spelman said.
Tories try to save gardens from builders
The Conservatives will call today for the closure of a loophole which allows developers to build new homes on gardens because such areas are classed as "brownfield" sites.
A Private Member's Bill from Caroline Spelman, a Tory front bencher, will allow councils to block or restrict developments on gardens and the sites of former homes.
"Across the country there is growing concern about gardens disappearing under concrete, regardless of local opinion. This is the effect of Labour's planning rules," Miss Spelman said.
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
Penners said:Sidebar piece from this morning's Telegraph:
Tories try to save gardens from builders
The Conservatives will call today for the closure of a loophole which allows developers to build new homes on gardens because such areas are classed as "brownfield" sites.
A Private Member's Bill from Caroline Spelman, a Tory front bencher, will allow councils to block or restrict developments on gardens and the sites of former homes.
"Across the country there is growing concern about gardens disappearing under concrete, regardless of local opinion. This is the effect of Labour's planning rules," Miss Spelman said.
I don't remember the Tories doing anything to stop the desecration of the suburb I grew up in when they were in power...
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Mine didn't take into account a number of issues when it originally 'encouraged' the developer. In hole and still digging...
I see the LBC app to demolish the wall for access is in the press today. Pity the CO already said OK to demolish part of it... but we insisted the wall was listed (curtilage, attached a listed building...) and the local authority solicitor has now agreed.
I think in this case plenty of things which could be used to refuse on planning grounds, it's just thy feel they have to allow 'brownfield' developments, although this is no such thing really!
I see the LBC app to demolish the wall for access is in the press today. Pity the CO already said OK to demolish part of it... but we insisted the wall was listed (curtilage, attached a listed building...) and the local authority solicitor has now agreed.
I think in this case plenty of things which could be used to refuse on planning grounds, it's just thy feel they have to allow 'brownfield' developments, although this is no such thing really!
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
The wind has changed, so the reeds are bending in a different direction.Gareth Hughes said:I don't remember the Tories doing anything to stop the desecration of the suburb I grew up in when they were in power...
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
Penners said:The wind has changed, so the reeds are bending in a different direction.Gareth Hughes said:I don't remember the Tories doing anything to stop the desecration of the suburb I grew up in when they were in power...
Or alternativel,y a new bandwagon has started to roll :roll:
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I'm sitting here with a response to the Heritage White Paper, adding my ha'porth (it has to be in today) and frankly I think it won't get better. Just easier for nasty developers...
andrew gayton
Member
- Messages
- 527
the H.W.P is certainly pro-developer............................
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
"nasty developers" seems a bit strong . . . do we really imagine developers are actively scheming to reduce the quality of our built environment? I don't think so - I think they just have to work with the economic and regulatory conditions they find themselves in.
Land prices are already causing gardens to disappear; how many new builds have large gardens these days? I agree with Gareth's comments about developing 'in-fill' sites versus the Cotswolds - it simply doesn't make much sense to build high-density 'affordable' housing in remote rural areas where there is insufficient local employment, which would lead to increased commuting putting more pressure on road-building etc etc.
If there were easy answers, even our politicians would have spotted them by now, implemented them, made everyone happy and remained in office forever as heroes of the people.
Land prices are already causing gardens to disappear; how many new builds have large gardens these days? I agree with Gareth's comments about developing 'in-fill' sites versus the Cotswolds - it simply doesn't make much sense to build high-density 'affordable' housing in remote rural areas where there is insufficient local employment, which would lead to increased commuting putting more pressure on road-building etc etc.
If there were easy answers, even our politicians would have spotted them by now, implemented them, made everyone happy and remained in office forever as heroes of the people.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Er - yes many developers are nasty IMHO... they aren't interested in the quality of the built environment, simply rather keen to make a pile of money. They can and do play dirty.
If that means historic buildings and areas go in the process - many are very happy to throw a whole load of dosh into that too.
If that means historic buildings and areas go in the process - many are very happy to throw a whole load of dosh into that too.
andrew gayton
Member
- Messages
- 527
not had that much involvement with developers then??
andrew gayton
Member
- Messages
- 527
my reply was to k.f not n.............