Build on brownfield sites in cities

[PoliteCritic]

This is the cry of people fighting against the building of new homes in the countryside. I think they are wrong.

I live in a City. Over the last five years lots of green areas have been built on. I went to Surrey at the weekend and they have lots of green spaces in between houses as well as proximity to green belt space. It felt leafy and green. In my City with all the odd bits of green spaces being built on, the City feels more and more concrete like.

There has to be a limit to building in cities. If you build on every green space except small parks serving enormous populations, then you make cities very unpleasant places to live. Why should places like Surrey live in far greener surroundings with access to large green spaces, and yet call for ever more building in Cities?

We need to build on these green spaces as well and in pretty ordinary fields to expand villages. You can't keep your view and expect those in cities to be left with virtually no access to any green space.
AIBU?

FFS- private companies have been slinging up Mc-develpoments for years. I live 2 miles from a major city centre but just up the road the 'village' borders some farmland and other green spaces. Despite years of protests the green space is now having 300 ugly new build boxes built. This is not new, hopefully going forward this will be social and affordable housing. The irony is most of the people objecting live in small developments from the 1970s-1990s. Everywhere was fields once

Surrey is very green with lots of open green spaces in between houses.
I agree it should be social housing though, rather than more large houses.

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about Surrey. But Surrey is not a town. It’s a county. There is development happening in the towns.

Sure. I do not have a been in my bonnet. Simply the contrast in the parts of Surrey I was compared to my city were stark.

I think the issue is the behemoth housing estates with no heart, blocked roads, no thought for other infrastructure such as schools, doctors surgeries, shops, social amenities. Look at what's happening on the outskirts of Edinburgh, acres and acres of identical boxes, too close to each other for good neighbourly relations.

But of course the building companies are all for maximising profit, not ensuring homeowners have decent quality homes in true neighbourhoods.

Labour are planning to slash and burn planning laws, but the situation needs way more thought.

Where were you in Surrey? Towns like Guildford and Redhill are like any other towns. The bits in between are greener because they are... not towns. I don't want to see the whole of the southeast concreted over, thank you.

I wish developers were made to develop the sites that they buy, that they kick tenants out of, then mothball for years.

I work in Earls Court, London. The exhibition centre was demolished almost a decade ago, council tenants were rehomed, the council handed out compulsory purchase orders, businesses were kicked out and our neighborhood was hollowed out with significantly fewer footfall, but still today the site is empty (bar the odd temporary outdoor event).

I find that disgusting!

And then where I live is Croydon. I moved here over 10 years ago when a Westfield was promised to us, the Whitgift centre was cleared out to make way. Croydon town centre has been destroyed, there's nothing worth going there for.

Developers should not be able to hoard land indefinitely and councils should be able to make them build and fulfill their promises within a reasonable time frame or they forfeit the land.

@eurochick I was not in Guildford, but I don't know how you can say that about Guildford when a very short walk from the main high street you have woods on Portsmouth Road. Guildford is one of the less green places in Surrey, and still way way greener than cities where people are calling for every scrap of land to be built on.
I was in several places in North Surrey.

Where do live @PoliteCritic I haven’t noticed this in the towns cities I am familiar with (mostly North England,Yorks/Midlands and central belt Scotland) and this is certainly not what is meant or should be meant by building on brownfield. Whilst development does go on Brownfield sites in these cities and towns (can’t ever recall green space being taken in my memory - most places I am familiar with have been actively putting it on in recent years or plan to as part of regeneration - lots quite lovely green city scaping going on across the North). I can however think of loads and loads of eyesore Brownfield sites across so many of these towns and cities which could be developed and which have been left to rack and ruin for years and years.

Think you might be the exception.

Developers don’t like brownfield as its costly to clear so they make less of a margin!!!! Also the pressure from local community groups can be immense - people like to get their knickers in a twist about the most peculiar asbestos, damp infested derelict rat hotels so like that they do remain!

In the campaign they talked a lot about grey belt and this has gone a bit quiet - city living isn’t appropriate/appealing for all generations and it would be nice to se new small communities developed between existing suburbs meaning they get the benefit of greenery a suburb community but are close to existing major infrastructure.

Ideally developers would prioritise those with low amounts of young families where there are schools with places or are at risk of closure - just read the third news article this yr about a small rural school closing due to consistent decline in pupil numbers.

Oh and the development of offices blocks despite there being loads stood empty - easier to develop then let something shiny and contemporary/also large scale high end money laundering

@Krupkrups as I said it is probably officially designated as wasteland but had been empty for many many years.

@Gorgonemilezola can’t comment on the amenities or lack of but they’re not the ugliest new builds ever and they are sorely needed so many low skilled and low paid workers and now even middle earners who are needed to keep Edinburghs economy running can not afford to live and thus work in the town!

Agree with what someone said up thread about clamping down on second homes and airbnbs this would increase supply and reduce prices in some areas. There needs to be a push and pull strategy - development will be needed regardless but the need could ve reduced by targeting some the common controllable problems which drive the issues in some areas.

They are talking about sanctioning people’s driveways and gardens to prevent flooding, but are happy to concrete and build over everything.

Utter madness..

I do think stopping people building over front gardens is a good idea. They are an important flood prevention item.

Absolutely.

Can't you see the hypocrisy though? Let's stop people paving over their front in the name of flood prevention gardens but build over everything else in sight? Won't that contribute the flooding as well? Ot is it just the front gardens?

We live in a village and they're building on every field they can, including ones where the only access is via a national speed limit narrow lane. No obligation to improve infrastructure, so the only GP surgery will be even more overwhelmed. Central Government overruled the local council to approve.

There are published open space standards, Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards and Green Infrastructure Frameworks that cities should deliver, making sure that there are open green spaces for the people that live in them. They should be part of the decision on whether to develop a brownfield area or put it to another use such as urban greenspace. We need to keep our cities liveable. I also think that greenbelt and other urban fringe land should be made to work harder for people and nature by providing recreational space and space for nature. As space gets more constrained, it needs to deliver multiple functions.

@ChardonnaysBeastlyCat Yes I agree

The WHO recommends universal access to green space: there should be a green space measuring at least 0.5 hectares at a linear distance of no more than 300 metres from every home.

There's no such thing as an 'ordinary field'. Should be full of habitats for wildlife, not covered in concrete. Personally I'd fast track a law to seize empty property/investment property etc but I am a bit of a radical.

Krupkrups
I agree completely about the second homes/Airbnb, particularly in Edinburgh, but the new estates are crammed in, many of the properties don't have off street parking so the ridiculously narrow roads are practically impossible to drive round. There's been plenty of stories locally about shoddy quality too.

And stories like this don't help the push to build new estates https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/articles/up-to-7000-home-lie-unused-in-edinburgh-research-finds

Towns are no longer growing organically and I think the rush to build these mega estates is only good news for the developers.

Also, we need an audit on just how much new housing is needed.

And stringent checks if council tenants actually meet the criteria. There are thousands who despite having a council accommodation here have also their own houses/flats in an another country.

It shouldn’t be happening but it does.

@Sharptonguedwoman

Personally I'd fast track a law to seize empty property/investment property etc but I am a bit of a radical.

Councils already have powers to seize empty homes but can't be bothered to do it except in exceptional circumstances.

We've a couple of empty properties on our road - both big 5 bedroomed houses. We've lived here for 27 years and they were empty/derelict when we moved in. Literally nothing has been done to either for at least 27 years and now they're in a shocking state.

Locals have been pestering the council ever since we moved in. There are Parish Council meeting minutes going back 25 years which mention it as they also have been pestering the council. People have been writing to various MPs over the years.

When councils already have powers but choose not to use them, there's not much point in creating new laws, which the council will also choose to ignore.

Fair point. Such a shame.

It used to be that when a plan, which had included for schools, GP surgeries etc didn't get PP, and it then got PP on appeal to government then it didn't have to build the social infrastructure. I don't know if that's still the case.