Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Turning your back gardens into housing

Bloody hell, can see this affecting a lot of people if it gets passed.
Could carry a lot of leaverage at Charlton perhaps?
«1

Comments

  • Got this cheeky f***er trying for this next door to me.
    Certainly put some effort in as well
  • Actually not a bad point, could it have an impact for unscrupulous club owners/asset strippers wanting to develop football grounds?
  • Was the point I was trying to make.
    Certainly could have an impact at Millwall.
  • No need to start building on peoples gardens - we have plenty of land available, only problem is that it is designated "green belt" and nobody will dare build on it. I'm not saying that parks, recreational areas & large forest areas should be built on, but if you look out of you car ot train window when travelling around Kent or Sussex there are plenty of open spaces etc that could house a small community. Where I live there is a proposal for a small town, with even a new school, shops & GP surgery and a new bypass to divert traffic away from the small village I live in so it doesn't impact on us. I believe that many of the local shops are against it, mainly as they think they will lose business from not having the passing trade but my look on it is that we need new housing & the bypass would also be welcome.
  • No need to start building on peoples gardens - we have plenty of land available, only problem is that it is designated "green belt" and nobody will dare build on it. I'm not saying that parks, recreational areas & large forest areas should be built on, but if you look out of you car ot train window when travelling around Kent or Sussex there are plenty of open spaces etc that could house a small community. Where I live there is a proposal for a small town, with even a new school, shops & GP surgery and a new bypass to divert traffic away from the small village I live in so it doesn't impact on us. I believe that many of the local shops are against it, mainly as they think they will lose business from not having the passing trade but my look on it is that we need new housing & the bypass would also be welcome.

    Agree with this, turns out only 2.27% if the UK is built on (7% is "urban"), so plenty of space! Of course, requires decent investment in infrastructure, but all perfectly possible and needs to be done. Near Chelmsford where I live they are putting in a massive new housing area, which will include shops, schools, and possibly even a train station. It can and should be done
  • The trouble is quite a few people are up for new housing as long as it's not on thier doorstep
  • McBobbin said:

    No need to start building on peoples gardens - we have plenty of land available, only problem is that it is designated "green belt" and nobody will dare build on it. I'm not saying that parks, recreational areas & large forest areas should be built on, but if you look out of you car ot train window when travelling around Kent or Sussex there are plenty of open spaces etc that could house a small community. Where I live there is a proposal for a small town, with even a new school, shops & GP surgery and a new bypass to divert traffic away from the small village I live in so it doesn't impact on us. I believe that many of the local shops are against it, mainly as they think they will lose business from not having the passing trade but my look on it is that we need new housing & the bypass would also be welcome.

    Agree with this, turns out only 2.27% if the UK is built on (7% is "urban"), so plenty of space! Of course, requires decent investment in infrastructure, but all perfectly possible and needs to be done. Near Chelmsford where I live they are putting in a massive new housing area, which will include shops, schools, and possibly even a train station. It can and should be done
    100 per cent agree - every last inch of play area, park or car park in existing estates in inner London is being 'Infilled' - arguing London less dense than Berlin and Paris - utter tripe! We have huge parks that skew that data. If a tiny fraction of the green belt were used to build government funded housing, this shortage and ridiculous inflation would be over within a decade - got to stop relying on developers to solve a national problem.
  • Sponsored links:


  • It sounds mad but this concept is very popular in NZ.
  • DOUCHER said:

    - 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?

  • Oggy Red said:

    DOUCHER said:

    - 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?

    Tax payer, and why not? Something we will all benefit from one way or another
  • Quite clear what needs to happen. Establish a strategy of "price nudging" in housing so that populations in high density areas find it unaffordable to live in those areas, thus alleviating pressure on limited housing stock.


    Oh, hang on....
  • McBobbin said:

    Oggy Red said:

    DOUCHER said:

    - 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?

    Tax payer, and why not? Something we will all benefit from one way or another
    Sounds good.

    Does that mean taxes will increase to pay for it?

    Or more cuts to essential services - schools, NHS, disabled people and social care for the elderly ..... ?

    The Government will tell you that money has to come from somewhere.
    And no one wants to pay.

  • Didn't we already pay for affordable housing? I have this distant vague memory of something called "council houses".
  • Oggy Red said:

    McBobbin said:

    Oggy Red said:

    DOUCHER said:

    - 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?

    Tax payer, and why not? Something we will all benefit from one way or another
    Sounds good.

    Does that mean taxes will increase to pay for it?

    Or more cuts to essential services - schools, NHS, disabled people and social care for the elderly ..... ?

    The Government will tell you that money has to come from somewhere.
    And no one wants to pay.

    Indeed. Loath as I am to pay any tax at all, it's got to the point where, quite frankly, i want some better stuff and realise it's gonna cost me. A few more quid in my bank account isn't going to make up for the fact they are having to build extra classrooms at my daughter's school in the playground, you can forget getting a doctor's appointment, the trains are iffy at best, the roads can be best described by singing the blankety bank song, except changing it to "wankety wank"... You get the picture.

    Scandinavian countries have higher tax and nicer stuff, and they are glad of it. Ok, you need a mortgage to buy a round but they don't have 120000 excess deaths of the old and infirm to cite one recent example.
  • No need to start building on peoples gardens - we have plenty of land available, only problem is that it is designated "green belt" and nobody will dare build on it. I'm not saying that parks, recreational areas & large forest areas should be built on, but if you look out of you car ot train window when travelling around Kent or Sussex there are plenty of open spaces etc that could house a small community. Where I live there is a proposal for a small town, with even a new school, shops & GP surgery and a new bypass to divert traffic away from the small village I live in so it doesn't impact on us. I believe that many of the local shops are against it, mainly as they think they will lose business from not having the passing trade but my look on it is that we need new housing & the bypass would also be welcome.

    I'm in a similar situation - huge proposed development near me. I've just moved in but all my neighbours are up in arms about it. My view is that the people who live in the new town would have no reason to come into "my" village, so I don't see a problem. Some of the cleverer newbies will discover the pub, which is a good thing because they could do with a few more customers.
  • McBobbin said:

    Oggy Red said:

    McBobbin said:

    Oggy Red said:

    DOUCHER said:

    - 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?

    Tax payer, and why not? Something we will all benefit from one way or another
    Sounds good.

    Does that mean taxes will increase to pay for it?

    Or more cuts to essential services - schools, NHS, disabled people and social care for the elderly ..... ?

    The Government will tell you that money has to come from somewhere.
    And no one wants to pay.

    Indeed. Loath as I am to pay any tax at all, it's got to the point where, quite frankly, i want some better stuff and realise it's gonna cost me. A few more quid in my bank account isn't going to make up for the fact they are having to build extra classrooms at my daughter's school in the playground, you can forget getting a doctor's appointment, the trains are iffy at best, the roads can be best described by singing the blankety bank song, except changing it to "wankety wank"... You get the picture.

    Scandinavian countries have higher tax and nicer stuff, and they are glad of it. Ok, you need a mortgage to buy a round but they don't have 120000 excess deaths of the old and infirm to cite one recent example.
    Jeremy Corbyn would be considered a "centre-right" politician in Scandinavian countries. Just shows you what a bit of socialism can do.
  • Saga Lout said:

    No need to start building on peoples gardens - we have plenty of land available, only problem is that it is designated "green belt" and nobody will dare build on it. I'm not saying that parks, recreational areas & large forest areas should be built on, but if you look out of you car ot train window when travelling around Kent or Sussex there are plenty of open spaces etc that could house a small community. Where I live there is a proposal for a small town, with even a new school, shops & GP surgery and a new bypass to divert traffic away from the small village I live in so it doesn't impact on us. I believe that many of the local shops are against it, mainly as they think they will lose business from not having the passing trade but my look on it is that we need new housing & the bypass would also be welcome.

    I'm in a similar situation - huge proposed development near me. I've just moved in but all my neighbours are up in arms about it. My view is that the people who live in the new town would have no reason to come into "my" village, so I don't see a problem. Some of the cleverer newbies will discover the pub, which is a good thing because they could do with a few more customers.
    our village have fought a couple of local planning applications not because we are against new housing but because the local infrastructure cannot cope, school already oversubscribed, doctors at breaking point. Also there are issues with flooding, sewerage, road management etc. There are really no sites in our village that are suitable but brownfield sites outside our boundary are but are not being considered. Local planning is in my opinion a joke.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Oggy Red said:

    DOUCHER said:

    - 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.
  • clb74 said:

    The trouble is quite a few people are up for new housing as long as it's not on thier doorstep

    People don't want the disruption.
  • 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.

    source https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/league-one/attendances

  • 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.
  • clb74 said:

    The trouble is quite a few people are up for new housing as long as it's not on thier doorstep

    People don't want the disruption.
    exactly people are all up for new housing to house thousands until it affects them " i cant park anywhere cos of all these fucking vans and lorries"
  • 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.

    source https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/league-one/attendances

    Millwall will be the first to go
  • Saga Lout said:

    No need to start building on peoples gardens - we have plenty of land available, only problem is that it is designated "green belt" and nobody will dare build on it. I'm not saying that parks, recreational areas & large forest areas should be built on, but if you look out of you car ot train window when travelling around Kent or Sussex there are plenty of open spaces etc that could house a small community. Where I live there is a proposal for a small town, with even a new school, shops & GP surgery and a new bypass to divert traffic away from the small village I live in so it doesn't impact on us. I believe that many of the local shops are against it, mainly as they think they will lose business from not having the passing trade but my look on it is that we need new housing & the bypass would also be welcome.

    I'm in a similar situation - huge proposed development near me. I've just moved in but all my neighbours are up in arms about it. My view is that the people who live in the new town would have no reason to come into "my" village, so I don't see a problem. Some of the cleverer newbies will discover the pub, which is a good thing because they could do with a few more customers.
    our village have fought a couple of local planning applications not because we are against new housing but because the local infrastructure cannot cope, school already oversubscribed, doctors at breaking point. Also there are issues with flooding, sewerage, road management etc. There are really no sites in our village that are suitable but brownfield sites outside our boundary are but are not being considered. Local planning is in my opinion a joke.
    I agree planning is a joke - I have to employ a fecking archaeologist to oversee my extension build because apparently my house is hear a Roman road. I suspect the w*nkers on the Parish Council just don't want me to build it and that's because they are utterly powerless to stop 12,000 new homes being built nearby. However, to support my earlier comment, at least in that development there is provision for schools, doctors and dentists.
  • shine166 said:

    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.
  • Didn't we already pay for affordable housing? I have this distant vague memory of something called "council houses".

    Very few local planning authorities still build council houses. If you have estates full of them, they just cause social problems. Regeneration across many towns in the UK is attempting to solve this problem.

    The strategy has shifted to including affordable housing as part of wider housing developments which I support, albeit I appreciate that the numbers of affordable homes built in absolute terms is probably a lot lower.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!