It depends on the council, of course, but it's quite likely that they
won't want to deviate from the local plan so if you want to develop
outside the designated envelope you will probably have quite a fight on
your hands. It also depends on whether they have identified sufficient
development sites to cover the predicted new housing requirements of the
area - if so you could also be in trouble.
One of the reasons that they can deviate from the plan is if there is a
lack of affordable housing for local residents in the area. Your
low-cost housing is a good bit of planning gain but I doubt that the
council will want to own them - have a word with a local housing
An eco house was built near where my parents live - it's almost
completely burried in the ground. I think the original application was
rejected by the city council but it was granted planning permission on
appeal to Prezza - the eco credentials plus the minimal impact on the
vicinty (it is barely visible) made the case.
Where are these developers doing it? Last year was the lower house building
figures since the early 1920s, yet the big builders made record profits. The
government launched an investigation, via Kate Barker, as to why so few
houses are being built. It seems the developers are bribing people not to
It has been happening where I live too - but not budozing Victorian
terraces, simply putting up two or three houses under the guise of making
one affordable home ( what affordable at 180K for a 2 bed box with 20ft of
garden in rural Cornwall?) and the council had been allowing it.
Its just greed.
That I could stomach. I don't mind some phosphate and nitrate polluted
farmer's field succumbing to houses. It is the permanent loss of some of the
most beautiful Victorian Gothic houses that I'm angry about.
But those "most beautiful Victorian Gothic houses" were probably put up
by the Barratt Homes of their day. Probably 80% of Conservation Areas
are just yet another lot of Victorian spec-build and if they can be
redeveloped to provide more housing then I'd much rather this happened
than it being forced out into areas where there are no shops, no PT, no
other facilities and car ownership is therefore all but mandatory.
It's a strange thing about Conservative politicians: suggest closing a
steelworks or coal mine and severely impacting a community and they'll
be all in favour of it, claiming that it's just market forces at work.
Suggest replacing a couple of Victorian villas by a block of flats and
they suddenly believe that the state knows best. If market forces were
allowed to operate we'd have more housing being built, and with the
removal of an artificial shortage developers would have to work harder
to deliver good quality.
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
Excellent post. The term Jerry Built was from a Victorian builder named
Jerry Bros. It is the draconian planning act that is the problem, closely
followed by the land being in the hands of a few people. The artificial
shortage prevents market forces serving the people. There should be little
requirement for publicly subsidised housing, which takes an enormous amount
of taxpayers money each year, if the free market was to reign. And better
competition would mean better designs and quality and far cheaper house
prices. In short, solve the land/planning problems and many ills are also
solved. Land is the root cause of many of the country's problems and if
tackled even our taxes will drop.
The large landowners spend millions each year in propaganda to convince us
we are short of land (a downright lie, as we have a surplus) and that
subsidised fields, by great expense from our taxes again, should be left and
we are all rammed into tight urban spaces.
Your are out of date. Its no longer commercially viable to use heavy
fertilizers on crops.
Round here they get a quick dusting of herbicide, and a little
fungicide, and the weeds grow alongside em.
A rotation takes care of butrient.
It is not greed. The country is short of millions of homes. The problem is
that we are not allowed to build on subsidised fields. That is the problem.
If we were allowed to build on boring fields then garden in-fills and the
likes would not happen.
Like the five acres of field I have just bought which borders my existing
smallholding and the lane ( I own) that allows access to it?
There is already one house next to me - built in the 1980's. That will be
the last within a five acre radius in my lifetime.
There are no mains services ( gas or drains) in the village down the road
from me - I too am outside the current building line - and the storm
drains cant take whats thrown at them already.
We may need that land you want to build on to house the millions to feed
the bloody hoards in a minute.
Well when someone actually makes that clear to me ( ie starts saying grow on
this land , not build on it) then I will put it under cultivation. Its just
a nature reserve at the moment ( not a managed one I might add.)
The previous owner was a "part time" farmer and put a few cows in the field
every now and then ( like once a year) and cut it to hay in the summer.
I havent done anything yet.
No need to. No need to grow anything on it either as we pay farmers not to
produce. You should not have to go to these extremes to maintain your
quality of life. Change the planning system/land ownership and what you are
understandable doing will be a thing of the past.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.