hairy Posted 3 April 2008 Posted 3 April 2008 Shit! It made the shortlist! BBC News Bordon, Hampshire Coltishall, Norfolk Curborough, Staffordshire Elsenham, Essex Ford, West Sussex Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire Imerys, Cornwall Leeds city region, West Yorkshire Manby, Lincolnshire Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire Middle Quinton, Warwickshire Pennbury, Leicestershire Rossington, South Yorkshire Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire Lets burn the Co-op! Bring back Swampy!
Guest Posted 3 April 2008 Posted 3 April 2008 Yes folks, let's build an eco town and save the environment on a green field site! Woohoo!
The People's Hero Posted 3 April 2008 Posted 3 April 2008 Manby is where Manwell Pablo lives. On his own.
Phube Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Ha ha... Laugh at the Nimby's!!! "But my view is lovely!!!" HA!
Rodders Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Look at the wider picture. It's not all about just that building on green fields in that area of the county. This will cause congestion on the A6 and A47, and the main routes to the M1. It will also take investment away from the city, which may cause economic problems for the whole county. It will also lead to overuse of public facilities in the city as a whole - the government are claiming the towns will be self-contained, but there's no way they can control that. Only plus side I can see is 80,000 new City fans...
breadandcheese Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Yes folks, let's build an eco town and save the environment on a green field site!Woohoo! Actually, compared to some of our European neighbours, we have a higher percentage of open countryside than many of them, so to lose a few greenfield sites to ensure our country has a good housing supply makes sense to me. If the greenfield site is not to close to existing villages such that it does not ruin their quality of life, where is the harm? Look at the wider picture. It's not all about just that building on green fields in that area of the county.This will cause congestion on the A6 and A47, and the main routes to the M1. It will also take investment away from the city, which may cause economic problems for the whole county. It will also lead to overuse of public facilities in the city as a whole - the government are claiming the towns will be self-contained, but there's no way they can control that. The transport links to the Eastern side of the country are appalling and should have been extended and improved years ago.
Phube Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Got to build somewhere. Yup... and if it annoys Stoughton residents... all the better!!!
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 This is like learning to ride a bike really. You have to understand there are 2 wheels, some pedals and (if you're lucky) some handlebars.
Raj Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 This is like learning to ride a bike really. You have to understand there are 2 wheels, some pedals and (if you're lucky) some handlebars. And a Chain. ALL good bikes have a chain,James.
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 And a Chain.ALL good bikes have a chain,James. I've never had a good bike Raj. I'd ride you though. You sexy hunk of idiot.
Guest Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Got to build somewhere. Actually, compared to some of our European neighbours, we have a higher percentage of open countryside than many of them, so to lose a few greenfield sites to ensure our country has a good housing supply makes sense to me. If the greenfield site is not to close to existing villages such that it does not ruin their quality of life, where is the harm?The transport links to the Eastern side of the country are appalling and should have been extended and improved years ago. Why not develop brownfield sites, where there is more likely to be the infrastucture in place to cope with additional housing?
Raj Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 I've never had a good bike Raj.I'd ride you though. You sexy hunk of idiot.
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Why not develop brownfield sites, where there is more likely to be the infrastucture in place to cope with additional housing? 1) That would be too sensible. 2) Anyone can develop on a brownfield site given the appropriate levels of planning and funding etc. Only firms with 'special' relationships with the authorities can build on green field sites. This should make some people a little richer. 3) All Brownfield sites belong to Gordon Brown. He likes them the way they are. And so does Colonel Mustard (closest thing to a brown in Cluedo, I guess).
Raj Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Why not develop brownfield sites, where there is more likely to be the infrastucture in place to cope with additional housing? Now thats just plain Racialistical.
breadandcheese Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Why not develop brownfield sites, where there is more likely to be the infrastucture in place to cope with additional housing? Whilst this is indeed the best solution. The practicalities can be somewhat more difficult. Many brownfield sites are fragmented pieces of land. It requires negotiations with many different owners for suitable sites. There are very few brownfield sites which are large enough to support mass house-building, where one landowner owns all the property on a site. So unless the government serves compulsory purchase orders on an area, I would imagine it would be too costly for a developer to attempt a mass building development in a rundown location, whilst negotiating with many different landlords. You've only got to see the problems the Olympics is having. The government had to serve compulsory purchase orders to clear existing businesses from the area, so that the area could be revitalised. Now a government could do this, but that would smell suspiciously like a taxpayer subsidy to building developers, helping them acquire land. I for one would not want to see my tax go towards subsidising private property developers. The other issue is what type of housing people want. The result of poor planning laws have resulted in many city centre flat developments, leaving the supply of actual houses trailing the demand. There is a large demand of people seeking a house to raise a child, preferably with a little patch of garden. Unless you have the rarity of the perfect brownfield site, which are very few and far between, it is unikely to find a suitable tract of land to cater to this demand in the numbers required. In my mind the only feasible solution is to embark on housebuilding programmes, but preferably out of the sight and way of existing homeowners who do not want them in their back yard. What's wrong with building a new village, where the services can be planned properly and we have a chance to build a settlement that is not confined by bad planning of the last century?
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Eco stuff is sh it. For every bore with a eco-friendly car who recycles a newspaper once a week, there's a me, driving a V6 3.0 car, buying food with as much packaging as possible.
Guest Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 What's wrong with building a new village, where the services can be planned properly and we have a chance to build a settlement that is not confined by bad planning of the last century? Nothing, except for the fact that this won't happen. I lived in Thorpe Asthma for 7 years, and the promises regarding facilities promised that never appeared lead me to believe that it was a bloody good job it wasn't in the middle of nowhere.
davieG Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Having lived in Great Glen for nearly 20 years and now in Glenfield I always found that every knew development there brought out the protesters but what I found amusing and ironic was that the most 'enthusiastic' protestors were the ones living in the newest houses, the houses that were subject to the previous protest. Today's new householder becoming tomorrows NIMBY.
Head Honcho Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 I'm not against building on greenfield sites but the empty army and air bases around the country need to be utilised first.
Daggers Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Why not develop brownfield sites, where there is more likely to be the infrastucture in place to cope with additional housing? Because the regulation applicable to brown field sites encourages the development of gardens as opposed to genuine ex-business sites. Personally, I would much rather see the countryside developed in a sensitive manner than the destruction of inner city garden areas...pending some twat to realise the mistake they made in the legislation which would allow sensible development of industrial areas. That said - opening up the countryside to people that don't have the best part of half a million available to buy a house can only be a good thing too. Me? I'm in favour.
Head Honcho Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 Because the regulation applicable to brown field sites encourages the development of gardens as opposed to genuine ex-business sites. Personally, I would much rather see the countryside developed in a sensitive manner than the destruction of inner city garden areas...pending some twat to realise the mistake they made in the legislation which would allow sensible development of industrial areas. That said - opening up the countryside to people that don't have the best part of half a million available to buy a house can only be a good thing too. Me? I'm in favour. We also have thousands of miles of coastline just waiting to be developed.
Daggers Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 We also have thousands of miles of coastline just waiting to be developed. Continually cramming people into cities makes no sense.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.