Only have to be on a plane to realise just how little of the country is built on, the crops excuse is BS too as we import pretty much everything that we consume.
We need to stop importing so much and use our land to produce our own food. We also need to keep green spaces to encourage bio-diversity, which is essential for human existence.
Yer I agree.... but we wont. Trouble is, at this point people like myself are paying mental money to get on the property ladder. Its pretty selfish, but id rather houses be cheaper.. than know my milk was farmed 300 miles away.
I understand your point of view with regards to cheaper houses but we are going to curse the decision to build on agricultural land one day when an inevitable crisis crops up and our food supplies from abroad are constrained.
Only have to be on a plane to realise just how little of the country is built on, the crops excuse is BS too as we import pretty much everything that we consume.
You're right.
Bit worrying that we are so dependent on the whim of others rather than producing more of our own.
Only have to be on a plane to realise just how little of the country is built on, the crops excuse is BS too as we import pretty much everything that we consume.
You're right.
Bit worrying that we are so dependent on the whim of others rather than producing more of our own.
I hope that 'Brexit' will address this.
We might have to - new Corn Laws required perhaps and Enclosure making a comeback ;-)
- got to stop relying on developers to solve a national problem.
No developer is going to build houses unless it can make a big profit.
So who pays for the infrastructure?
Don't get your point? i'm saying we need to stop relying on developers - currently they are asked to provide infrastructure via section 106 etc - the govt spends money on subsidising rents etc for social housing - its arse about face - they need to spend the money up front and build rather than the developers building and then making up the shortfall for affordable housing.
I'm not talking about providing infrastructure for a handful of residential access roads on a new development. Sure developers have to provide that.
But these new estates tend to be tacked on to an established village or small town where services and roads are already at capacity or can't cope. Who pays for the new schools, transport, road widening, doctor's surgery/casualty, utilities which often then need entirely replacing or major investment?
It won't be the profit hungry developers. They'll only put in the very minimum they can get away with. And it won't be enough.
- got to stop relying on developers to solve a national problem.
No developer is going to build houses unless it can make a big profit.
So who pays for the infrastructure?
Don't get your point? i'm saying we need to stop relying on developers - currently they are asked to provide infrastructure via section 106 etc - the govt spends money on subsidising rents etc for social housing - its arse about face - they need to spend the money up front and build rather than the developers building and then making up the shortfall for affordable housing.
I'm not talking about providing infrastructure for a handful of residential access roads on a new development. Sure developers have to provide that.
But these new estates tend to be tacked on to an established village or small town where services and roads are already at capacity or can't cope. Who pays for the new schools, transport, road widening, doctor's surgery/casualty, utilities which often then need entirely replacing or major investment?
It won't be the profit hungry developers. They'll only put in the very minimum they can get away with. And it won't be enough.
Quick question.
All these new schools, hospitals and Doctors etc. are for people that exist, I assume. So if we don't build new houses does that mean that these people will not need public services at all?
Sadly the truth is as has already been said. Everyone wants more population per square mile except where they live; everyone wants more houses built, just not where they live; Homeowners want house prices to be affordable for first time buyers, just as long as their house keeps rocketing up in value; and everyone wants a better road and rail infrastructure just as long as it doesn't go past their house, of reduce the value of it.
We basically have two choices, build more houses to home the increasing population or increase the number of people living in each property. However, there is no way to provide public services to an increasing population without increasing the public services or reducing the services available to everyone. Where the houses are built doesn't change that fact, all it might do is protect those in specific communities that have more public services per head of population than the rest of the country, and one does question if that is fair?
The trouble is quite a few people are up for new housing as long as it's not on thier doorstep
I'm all for building new homes and would gladly have them around my way but there is just not any spare land around Locksbottom, Crofton, Farnborough and Keston. Probably best to build them the other side of the A2.
- got to stop relying on developers to solve a national problem.
No developer is going to build houses unless it can make a big profit.
So who pays for the infrastructure?
Don't get your point? i'm saying we need to stop relying on developers - currently they are asked to provide infrastructure via section 106 etc - the govt spends money on subsidising rents etc for social housing - its arse about face - they need to spend the money up front and build rather than the developers building and then making up the shortfall for affordable housing.
I'm not talking about providing infrastructure for a handful of residential access roads on a new development. Sure developers have to provide that.
But these new estates tend to be tacked on to an established village or small town where services and roads are already at capacity or can't cope. Who pays for the new schools, transport, road widening, doctor's surgery/casualty, utilities which often then need entirely replacing or major investment?
It won't be the profit hungry developers. They'll only put in the very minimum they can get away with. And it won't be enough.
the developer - I do the cost plans for this type of thing all the time - usually, an infrastructure developer will do the master planning, get planning permission then build out the roads / roundabouts, the drainage service the plots etc etc and sell the scheme on to housebuilders / contractors and will either pay the council to build the schools etc etc or build out / sub it out. The point is that the developer is doing it all for profit and scooping that off and if the investment was directly by councils, then that profit wouldn't be scooped off whereas the initial cost would be balanced by not having to subsidise the social tenants. I.E - back to building council houses which should never have been sold off in the first place.
football grounds in general must be at risk take Leyton orient or pretty much any league 1/2 ground, massive stadiums that are no where near capacity, in any other business if the building isn't full people downsize and move on.
just for example in our league stadium mk holds 30,500 yet there average attendance is just under 8600.
The trouble is quite a few people are up for new housing as long as it's not on thier doorstep
I'm all for building new homes and would gladly have them around my way but there is just not any spare land around Locksbottom, Crofton, Farnborough and Keston. Probably best to build them the other side of the A2.
As someone now living in Chislehurst, I'm glad it's all protected land and National Trust here!
Comments
Bit worrying that we are so dependent on the whim of others rather than producing more of our own.
I hope that 'Brexit' will address this.
But these new estates tend to be tacked on to an established village or small town where services and roads are already at capacity or can't cope. Who pays for the new schools, transport, road widening, doctor's surgery/casualty, utilities which often then need entirely replacing or major investment?
It won't be the profit hungry developers. They'll only put in the very minimum they can get away with.
And it won't be enough.
All these new schools, hospitals and Doctors etc. are for people that exist, I assume. So if we don't build new houses does that mean that these people will not need public services at all?
Sadly the truth is as has already been said. Everyone wants more population per square mile except where they live; everyone wants more houses built, just not where they live; Homeowners want house prices to be affordable for first time buyers, just as long as their house keeps rocketing up in value; and everyone wants a better road and rail infrastructure just as long as it doesn't go past their house, of reduce the value of it.
We basically have two choices, build more houses to home the increasing population or increase the number of people living in each property. However, there is no way to provide public services to an increasing population without increasing the public services or reducing the services available to everyone. Where the houses are built doesn't change that fact, all it might do is protect those in specific communities that have more public services per head of population than the rest of the country, and one does question if that is fair?
Probably best to build them the other side of the A2.
Down to only an additional 230k people last year. No need for new schools, doctors, roads, hospitals and other services now it's so small.
Demolish stadium MK for housing and relocate football club.
South West London anybody.
https://migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/population