Guest Posted 4 April 2008 Posted 4 April 2008 We live on a developed brownfield site now, and it is not in a city centre, and it's not an apartment, it's a house. A proper house.
Ultra 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. As am I.. However, I'm not convinced that this is the best site available. The current infrastructure is not exactly the best.
Webbo Posted 5 April 2008 Posted 5 April 2008 I don't have strong feelings on this as I don't live anywhere near, however I can sympathise with the nimbys on this. I cant be nice to spend £300k+ on a nice house with a view of the countryside only to have the next Beaumont Leys plonked right next door to you.
hairy Posted 15 January 2009 Author Posted 15 January 2009 99% of people who voted yesterday are against it but the Co-op still mays they are the 'minority'. WTF! Beeb report
Guest Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 There is a short-term crisis in the housing market but the fundamentals of supply and demand apply. There aren't enough houses out there. Why is that? Shouldn't we be addressing the issues that have lead to shortfalls in the housing market rather than building more properties?
purpleronnie Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Of course people are against it, Not in my back yard is the small minded response. We have to provide housing we have to progress, plans have been made to build near my house and my view of fields may now be replaced with 100's of houses, within minutes of the announcement a protest group was formed I think I'm the only one on my road not joining in, I bought a new house so did they, hypocrites the lot of them.
purpleronnie Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Why is that?Shouldn't we be addressing the issues that have lead to shortfalls in the housing market rather than building more properties? I do agree but there are little affordable housing lets hope thats addressed if they do build a new town I'm sure it would.
Babylon Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 99% of people who voted yesterday are against it but the Co-op still mays they are the 'minority'. WTF!Beeb report The people who can actually be bothered to vote are the ones that really don't want it. So there are another 2/3's that obviously aren't that fussed about it being built there.
Raj Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Have they started building yet? Might move to it...Pennbury sounds alot more up market than Evington.
hairy Posted 15 January 2009 Author Posted 15 January 2009 The people who can actually be bothered to vote are the ones that really don't want it. So there are another 2/3's that obviously aren't that fussed about it being built there. Obviously if you have a strong view either way then you are more likely to vote but it works both ways. I didn't see queues of young people voting yes to get their affordable house it must be said. Maybe because its not required in the area but more round Market Harborough. This proposed development is huge. They reckon the size of Coalville yet the normal planning considerations are being pushed aside. For example there is no consideration for the extra flood water this development will bring into Great Glen, this is usually an issue that would stop the development in its tracks. The local councils, who will have to provide and maintain services for the development do not have the right to veto as with normal planning. The proposed tram link to the city is not definite and there are no other proposals to increase the local intrastructure to cope with the increased loads. The Co-op hasn't even been specific about its proposals, just the number of units it wants to put up.
hairy Posted 15 January 2009 Author Posted 15 January 2009 I do agree but there are little affordable housing lets hope thats addressed if they do build a new town I'm sure it would. I would suggest you look at the names of the house builders interested in developing the site and tell me which ones have ever construction affordable housing let alone 'Eco'.
Guest Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 I do agree but there are little affordable housing lets hope thats addressed if they do build a new town I'm sure it would. That's my whole point. Why haven't we got affordable housing? When walking down Jarrom Street last week, I was amazed at how empty the street was, car wise, and how many letting boards were up. It wasn't that long ago these were the types of houses that first time buyers were purchasing, or people who had lower incomes. Now they aren't available because they've been bought up by landlords looking to rent. Isn't it true that we are getting to a stage where there are more properties available to rent than those who want to rent? However, as we all know, the value of property is more likely to increase over the long term, so how many of these landlords will be trimming their portfolios, and thus alleviating the need to build more houses. I know that Pennbury will have to have 'affordable' housing, but having lived on Thorpe Asthma for too long, and seeing how easy it is for developers to change their plans, I would suspect the majority of homes built will be for those already on the property ladder, with higher incomes, looking to move up to the next level.
Phube Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Pennbury gets my vote... if only to annoy the Stoughton lot!! EDIT: Just noticed this is my 3rd anti-Stoughton post in this thread...
hairy Posted 15 January 2009 Author Posted 15 January 2009 Why do people on here think its only rich people in new houses who live in the country?
Webbo Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 This proposed development is huge. They reckon the size of Coalville yet the normal planning considerations are being pushed aside. For example there is no consideration for the extra flood water this development will bring into Great Glen, this is usually an issue that would stop the development in its tracks. The local councils, who will have to provide and maintain services for the development do not have the right to veto as with normal planning. The proposed tram link to the city is not definite and there are no other proposals to increase the local intrastructure to cope with the increased loads. The Co-op hasn't even been specific about its proposals, just the number of units it wants to put up. It's no co-incidence that the Co-op is a major donor to the Labour Party.
Phube Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Why do people on here think its only rich people in new houses who live in the country? It's not rich people I'm against... it's the blatant nimby-ism ALL country folk (rich or poor) have and their air of superiority...
Corky Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 It's not rich people I'm against... it's the blatant nimby-ism ALL country folk (rich or poor) have and their air of superiority... Just people from Stoughton it seems
Phube Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Just people from Stoughton it seems Now you get it!! (And I do have relatives there too! But they're new to the village so aren't allowed to be included in village life until they have been there for 78 years... )
hairy Posted 15 January 2009 Author Posted 15 January 2009 It's not rich people I'm against... it's the blatant nimby-ism ALL country folk (rich or poor) have and their air of superiority... Thats because we are better than you phube. I have never had a tangled testie
davieG Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 It's always going to be problem building on open countryside, personally I'm more against builders putting up property on relatively cheap land because it's next to a major trunk road, there so many examples of 'ring roads' and 'by passes' being built and house popping up along side of them before the tarmac is laid. This is such an unhealthy option no wonder Lisa refers to it as Thorpe Asthma - it should never have been built that close to the motorway. Unfortunately you have builders and councils with a vested interest in building anywhere they can in order to maximise revenue in either house sales or council tax. I remember when I lived in Great Glen it was always expanding and there were always people protesting, it was noticeable that the loudest protesters were the newest residents residing in the houses that were the subject of the previous protest. Either we've got to allow existing villages and towns to expand, and I suspect the anti-Pennbury protesters are the same ones against village expansion or we will end up with more proposals like Pennbury. Surely the ultimate aim, and it will need more greenfield as well as brownfield sites is to have more houses than we need so that house prices at least stabilise or preferably come down in real terms.
Corky Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Thats because we are better than you phube. I have never had a tangled testie It's a capital P, hairy. Phube is going to blow a fuse (in his head)
Phube Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 It's a capital P, hairy. Phube is going to blow a fuse (in his head) It's like you know me!!
Corky Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 It's like you know me!! Alright Phube, don't go too far
Alexikokopops Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Now you get it!!(And I do have relatives there too! But they're new to the village so aren't allowed to be included in village life until they have been there for 78 years... ) Are you sure they're not being excluded because they insisted on telling everyone that the Wii is the best console EVAR while whipping sales figures out at ever conceivable opportunity?
Corky Posted 15 January 2009 Posted 15 January 2009 Are you sure they're not being excluded because they insisted on telling everyone that the Wii is the best console EVAR while whipping sales figures out at ever conceivable opportunity? I've heard rumours it's not the only thing Phube likes to "whip out at every opportunity"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.