Apologies for this being quite a long post but there are two issues which connect. Might the moderator consider pinning this for a while?
Firstly, all local authorities are required to produce a Local Development Framework to outline how they are going to meet the expected housing needs in the future. They are long and complex documents but it would be worth looking at the one for your area because if they follow the same pattern as my local authority, they propose to meet the need by using huge swathes of green belt land. Although you might expect them to use brownfield sites first, the simple financial fact is there is more profit in developing greenbelt because there are no contamination/site clearance issues. In my area, the proposals will remove from pleasant local fields some of the short countryside walks locals have enjoyed for generations.
The second factor which plays into this is that I watched a very interesting programme on Channel 4 last night and the night before - The Great British Property Scandal , fronted by George Clarke. Worth catching up on Channel 4oD. It transpires there are thousands and thousands of empty houses around the country. In many cases these result from the last Government promising local authorities funds to redevelop areas. Local authorities purchased many old properties (some compulsorily) and emptied council houses and boarded them up with the intention of demolition and rebuilding. Problem – these funds have now been largely withdrawn.
In fact with some modernisation, there is nothing matter with these homes and obviously every home reused is potentially one less bit of countryside destroyed. George Clarke wants the Government to establish a fund which property owners, potential tenants and local authorities/housing trusts could use to borrow money to renovate these houses for rent. The loan would be repaid via the rent and recycled to refurbish more “empties”. He has had some support from Grant Shapps MP, Minister of State For Housing and Local Government.
George is asking people to sign his on line petition and there does seem to be some momentum as 40,000 have signed. See his website and consider signing the petition.
It's happening around our ex-pit village & the council are being very low key about making the residents aware of their plans - it's on their website if you look & there's a poster in the local shop about discussion meetings held at the local school but all very easy to miss. I happened across one meeting purely by fluke picking the lad up from an after school class. Plans seem to be mainly for private housing, mostly 3 beds with 15% social housing mixed in. One proposed site takes out some allotments - something the council are trying to promote!
To be fair our local council have been pretty good at developing brownfield sites with local developers & we do have a growing population that's going to need housing but I agree a lot of boarded up housing in some cities need sorting out & putting back into use to help relieve the pressure on the green belt.
Where I live they are developing brownfield sites and cramming houses into the built up area. However the issue with that is they get planning permission partly on account of them saying they will offer a proportion of "affordable" housing but that is not defined. When they come to finish the development there is at best one or two out of the 25 or 30 properties they ended up with actually being within first time buyer levels of affordability and it is only likely to be affordable by couples bringing in two half decent wages. The rest are at best second step up on the ladder houses.
One thing for sure there is not easy solution and you do need to use more than one solution so greenfield sites will always be needed. At least in part because some areas don't even have enough brownfield sites for housing demands.
Another thing is in some areas the affordable housing developments much heralded by the last lot has actually stalled due to lack of money in the developers' pockets for it. What chance if they can't get money for profitable developments in areas with a housing shortage is there for local governments to get money to refurb their derelict housing stock?? Even if that guy gets his scheme going where money is recovered through rent it still needs the seed money to get it going. That £100m won't help in all authorities and so which ones do you start it in? Tory or Labour or Liberal areas? Which party is going to get the benefit from that?? Realism means that social housing is going to be less and less likely in the future I think. It will be a mix of property developments and housing trust at best. Councils not going to build houses nor refurb derelict ones. Nice idea George Clarke keep working on it (while earning money making TV documentary programmes about it).
at some point in the past where you live now was probably once a nice countryside walk for the locals before it got redeveloped to cater for a growing population and industry.
people. people need somewhere to live. even recovering the empty housing there still isn't enough and not enough in the right areas.
and there is always the conundrum of the rare species that were eradicated/forced out when the brownfield sites were developed returning there now that the sites have been left to degenerate.
WE had a brownfield site developed near the centre of our little town courtesy of ASDA who developed it at a high expense since it was contaminated land from the old gasworks. ASDA then got told to sell it as they had too many stoes in that area so Safeways bought it. Then Safeways got bought by Morrisons who got told to sell it as they had too many stores in the area. That was when Tesco bought it.
Anyway the houses developed near us were on wasteland that was neither countryside nor developed land or they were on the side of a repair garage (which also dealt a bit with scrap cars) which sold off most of their land to a developer catering for the retired person. However due to the market and location not appealing to those retirees with the money to buy them these are now open to anyone to buy.
Anyway, there are other areas in the town being built on and none are greenfield nor brownfield sites with any really important benefit to nature. There are some greenfield developments though and I've yet to find out what they are for. On the edge of town between the town and the M6 they are levelling the land, clearing the grass away and building a large, steel framed building on land each side of the road. These buildings are a long way from the nearest road too which is confusing me a bit. Not good as it is on greenfield sites and has nothing but fields (and the M6) between it and the next village.
There are cogent and (seemingly) compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. It's a minefield and almost certainly the issues are not as black-and-white as either side wants to make out
As to yet another e-petition, I'm getting OM petition fatigue. Call me a cynic but I'm particularly sceptical about one raised by Channel Four Television which, surprise surprise, also could be seen as a useful publicity spin-off for its prgramming.
It is a minefield and I feel sorry for the people needing housing and the poor sods who have to administer the system, as no matter what they do they seem to get it the neck from there political masters at a local or national level or from some special interest group.
I think part of the problem is that everyone looks at the problem from a different perspective and what suits one group doesn't always suit all. I think it's a bit harsh to to dismiss the George Clark documentary because of the possible commercial implications he came across as a decent bloke with a passion for the subject and I would have more faith in him than some of the politicians
On the face of it the loan scheme seems a nice simple idea, I just hope it doesnt get hi jacked and become some beauracatrical nightmare.
I don't think the countryside is immune from housing pressures, I seem. To remember some people abjecting to affordable housing been built in Pooley bridge a good few years back, I have to confess at the time it seemed crazy
Best of luck to George Clarke's scheme it has to be good idea. I did watch the programme but couldn't help thinking the subject is more complex than it looks. Labours idea was to do just that i.e improve older houses where they stand. To do it piecemeal by funding tenants etc will not be easy.
The Government has pulled the plug on some schemes leaving the homes empty with no funding to sort the situation out. People promised refurbed homes have been left worse off than before as some tenants were moved out and businesses closed nearby as they were no longer viable as the community shrank. It is easier to knock houses down and start again and private developers want to do just that and turn over quick schemes and not get involved with lots of red tape and administer lots of people. If you renovate an old house you still end up with an old house.
It also needs the public sector to work up these projects and administer funds and that sector is being reduced. It is just this type of scheme that local authorities seed corn and get moving but the staff are not going to be there.
Thatchers Council house sell off created the present massive short fall in Social housing and there is talk of starting this again. Not every purchaser benefited, there are plenty of ex tenants, particularly those who were encouraged to buy flats and houses in poor locations, that are now unable to sell them as they are in the middle of estates and not good value locations.
