Entry tags:
Brown field
I see that England has reclassified gardens in planning terms so they are no longer “brownfield” sites (a category otherwise used for post-industrial land). This means that councils can make the planning process for building on gardens more arduous, which I welcome. Suburban gardens should be treasured and valued, rather than viewed as a money-making development opportunity. In particular, I don’t think that houses should be built on gardens in a way that significantly changes the housing density or character of a neighbourhood.
In covering this story on the BBC News channel, their report said that new houses will still need to be built. Do they?
In covering this story on the BBC News channel, their report said that new houses will still need to be built. Do they?
no subject
However, I think it would take more extensive social engineering than just failing to build houses to prevent the lemming-like rush to live/work/do business there. Lack of housing, while the other pressures to go there remain, will just result in slum conditions.
You need to move significant parts of government and business out of London to make that kind of change. Difficult.
no subject
And if the government took a lead in this by saying that it was unaffordable to pay anyone a London weighting on a public-sector salary that didn't have a really good reason to be based in London, then that could see public spending move out of the south east too.
no subject
Hrmmm.... Move Defence to somewhere between Portsmouth, Brize Norton, and Salisbury Plain. Winchester, perhaps? Salisbury? Home office to Manchester. Environment to Newcastle. Treasury to Birmingham. Can you hear the lamentation of the masses already? And yet presumably it would net a massive amount for the treasury, as you sold all that prime housing land in central london.
no subject