Donate SIGN UP

Should more houses be built?

Avatar Image
rov1200 | 14:03 Sat 06th Feb 2010 | News
8 Answers
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../business/8501479.stm

As builders seem reluctant to use brown field sites it will it mean building them on the Green belt?

Or should more high rise flats be built instead?

As the South East is pretty well full up what area of the country should be targetted?

Should we limit immigration to lessen the demand?

What methods could be used to solve the overall problem?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 8 of 8rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"The green belt is a Labour achievement; and we intend to build upon it"
John Prescott.

says it all really, doesn't it?
>As builders seem reluctant to use brown field sites

Only because they can make more profit building on a green field site as they dont have to spend any money clearing the brown field site first.

It always makes me laugh that builders take over a green field site and build houses on it and then call the housing estate "squirrel view" or "green pastures" when that is what it was BEFORE they built on it.
>Should we limit immigration to lessen the demand?

Bit blooming late for that. This labour government have had a "open door" policy on immigration, allowing hundreds of thouands in, and driving out of the country those people who have lived here all their lives as they cant stand it here any more.
The National Housing Federation represents the interest of all the Housing Associations.
So, not-for-profit or not, they have a vested interest in self-existence. They are just people with jobs to protect too, you know.
What the article is actually about is overcrowding.
This doesn't fit too well with Government policy that requires a greater proportion of smaller houses to be built, and to a density per acre far greater than in recent past (since Victorian back-to-backs).
Question Author
Our local council will not pass plans when a plot has less than 10 houses/acre on it. People are selling off their back gardens in order to make a fast buck. Houses are being built with such small rooms you can't swing a cat round. Gardens are being replaced with a patio if you're lucky. Garages are built but many will not take a car wider than a mini.

If we are so short of space then the only way is up and that means high density flats.
Possibly - as were constructed by dozens of councils from the mid-60s onwards.
But these created other problems - lack of 'community' and 'no sense of belonging' for a kick-off (quite apart from some examples of poor construction techniques - which is relatively easy to put right). So it isn't as if it has hasn't been tried before.
I can't see UK planning policies going back to that scenario any time soon.
Selling off back gardens is a slightly different issue and doesn't, in general, result in wholesale creation of lots of flats in that garden - more often a way of creating a few more single dwellings.
There are a million empty properties lying empty in the Uk at the moment so it might be an idea for councils to look into that for a start before building anymore. Also there is little point in building more homes if the people who want/need them cannot get the mortgages to buy them!
Question Author
I agree sooper

1 to 8 of 8rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Should more houses be built?

Answer Question >>