The ArgusCampaigners claim victory as talks on 1180 new homes put on hold (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Campaigners claim victory as talks on 1180 new homes put on hold

The Argus: Campaigners claim victory as plans for 1180 new homes put on hold Campaigners claim victory as plans for 1180 new homes put on hold

Environmental campaigners have hailed a victory for people power after controversial plans to build almost 1,200 homes on green spaces in Brighton and Hove were put on hold.

Councillors were yesterday due to discuss the proposals and agree to launch a public consultation on the amendments to the City Plan which lays out the amount of housing required up to 2030.

But the talks have been pushed back until the autumn to allow more time for discussions.

Campaigners gathered outside the Hove Town Hall prior to the meeting with placards reading “save our green havens” and “hands off our parks”.

The Argus understands that Labour and Conservative opposition councillors were set to oppose the proposals to put the amendments out to a nine week public consultation starting on July 25.

Under the amended plans, 250 homes are pencilled in for land off Mile Oak Road in Portslade, 150 homes would be accommodated south of Warren Road near Brighton Racecourse and 140 homes on land north of Coldean Lane.

The proposed 39 sites for extra housing to be included in the City Plan were identified in a council-commissioned report after an independent inspector called on the council to accommodate more housing on urban fringes in the city.

The council is under pressure to meet this request because if the City Plan is not agreed, planning decisions will be governed by the National Planning Policy Framework which critics argue works in favour of developers.

Chris Todd, of Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth, has been a strong opponent of the new plans since they were made public last week.

He said: “I think it’s a great result and will give everybody time for further reflection and to look again at what is being proposed.

“We have got to find more housing and we are not opposed to housing outright but it can’t be housing at any costs.

“We need to get this right and we need to have the community with this, we can’t railroad this through.

“I think the council did not want to be pushed down this path but they feel they have been left with no other choice.”

Martin Randall head of planning and public protection at Brighton and Hove City Council said: "The City Plan has been deferred for further consideration.”

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:49pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Wageslavemum says...

A small reprieve. Well done to the campaigners. Let's hope there is now adequate fact finding and consultation to find sustainable workable ways forward. Here's hoping.
A small reprieve. Well done to the campaigners. Let's hope there is now adequate fact finding and consultation to find sustainable workable ways forward. Here's hoping. Wageslavemum
  • Score: 25

6:11pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Justin says...

It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area.
It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area. Justin
  • Score: -21

6:17pm Fri 11 Jul 14

FatherTed11 says...

I hope the NIMBYs can sleep at night (in their houses).
I hope the NIMBYs can sleep at night (in their houses). FatherTed11
  • Score: -22

6:21pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Warren Morgan says...

A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.
A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally. Warren Morgan
  • Score: 36

6:31pm Fri 11 Jul 14

hammerfan says...

This government is having to put right the short sighted housing policies of the last forty years! We need more housing. There are people born in this city who do not have a hope in hell of finding affordable housing. It might make sense to build on the some areas devastated by travellers! Some of our parks and open spaces are now eyesores. We may as
well build on them!
This government is having to put right the short sighted housing policies of the last forty years! We need more housing. There are people born in this city who do not have a hope in hell of finding affordable housing. It might make sense to build on the some areas devastated by travellers! Some of our parks and open spaces are now eyesores. We may as well build on them! hammerfan
  • Score: 1

6:32pm Fri 11 Jul 14

NickBtn says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.
We need more affordable housing in Brighton - both to rent and to buy. There is an issue with supply and demand - far too little supply and a huge demand. Brighton, with its popularity, can perhaps never meet the demand but prices have got too high

We need more suitable housing for the city and the council should be taking more of a lead (and previous council's too). Brighton planning is very conservative (with a small c!). The government, as I understand it, has a big stick if councils can't agree to more housing - and we are in danger of it being used

Added to that, there is a carrot - Brighton gets a government grant for each new house (around £8,000 per house) - so this represents £1m that the council has put on hold. That's a lot of services which could be supported

So why can't the council and councillors come up with a plan to develop more brown and (a few) greenfield sites, put workable conditions around affordability and social housing and create a win-win?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.[/p][/quote]We need more affordable housing in Brighton - both to rent and to buy. There is an issue with supply and demand - far too little supply and a huge demand. Brighton, with its popularity, can perhaps never meet the demand but prices have got too high We need more suitable housing for the city and the council should be taking more of a lead (and previous council's too). Brighton planning is very conservative (with a small c!). The government, as I understand it, has a big stick if councils can't agree to more housing - and we are in danger of it being used Added to that, there is a carrot - Brighton gets a government grant for each new house (around £8,000 per house) - so this represents £1m that the council has put on hold. That's a lot of services which could be supported So why can't the council and councillors come up with a plan to develop more brown and (a few) greenfield sites, put workable conditions around affordability and social housing and create a win-win? NickBtn
  • Score: 18

6:47pm Fri 11 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Amazing, isn't it, how these people who complain about those who object to having open borders don't want housing built to cater for......er....our open borders.

Vote UKIP.......stem the flood AND preserve our countryside.
Amazing, isn't it, how these people who complain about those who object to having open borders don't want housing built to cater for......er....our open borders. Vote UKIP.......stem the flood AND preserve our countryside. stevo!!
  • Score: -28

7:04pm Fri 11 Jul 14

spurious warnings says...

stevo!! wrote:
Amazing, isn't it, how these people who complain about those who object to having open borders don't want housing built to cater for......er....our open borders.

Vote UKIP.......stem the flood AND preserve our countryside.
As AlanPare brilliantly responded to Stevo!!

Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

•Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

•Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

•Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

•Requires excessive admiration

•Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

•Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

•Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

•Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

•Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: Amazing, isn't it, how these people who complain about those who object to having open borders don't want housing built to cater for......er....our open borders. Vote UKIP.......stem the flood AND preserve our countryside.[/p][/quote]As AlanPare brilliantly responded to Stevo!! Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms: •Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) •Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love •Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) •Requires excessive admiration •Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations •Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends •Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others •Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her •Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes spurious warnings
  • Score: 11

7:32pm Fri 11 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Amazing, isn't it, how these people who complain about those who object to having open borders don't want housing built to cater for......er....our open borders.

Vote UKIP.......stem the flood AND preserve our countryside.
Amazing, isn't it, how these people who complain about those who object to having open borders don't want housing built to cater for......er....our open borders. Vote UKIP.......stem the flood AND preserve our countryside. stevo!!
  • Score: -24

7:39pm Fri 11 Jul 14

rolivan says...

How much land does the Council own that is not green belt and outside the City but could be sold to raise funds to build Social Housing . Do they really need to own Farmland?
How much land does the Council own that is not green belt and outside the City but could be sold to raise funds to build Social Housing . Do they really need to own Farmland? rolivan
  • Score: 20

8:13pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Lord Bingham says...

Well done NIMBYs! Where do you suggest housing should be built then...in the sea?
Well done NIMBYs! Where do you suggest housing should be built then...in the sea? Lord Bingham
  • Score: -17

8:28pm Fri 11 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Lord Bingham wrote:
Well done NIMBYs! Where do you suggest housing should be built then...in the sea?
No, Poland.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Bingham[/bold] wrote: Well done NIMBYs! Where do you suggest housing should be built then...in the sea?[/p][/quote]No, Poland. stevo!!
  • Score: -33

8:43pm Fri 11 Jul 14

NickBrt says...

Thank goodness these green sites won't be built on. We need those sites for our lovely Traveller friends!
Thank goodness these green sites won't be built on. We need those sites for our lovely Traveller friends! NickBrt
  • Score: 7

8:48pm Fri 11 Jul 14

davedebrax says...

Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.
Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports. davedebrax
  • Score: 33

10:28pm Fri 11 Jul 14

tisbury says...

To solve our housing problems a real revolution is needed. We need to build enough new social housing for it to be a form of genuine competition to the private rental market. This needs to be on premium sites in the city as well as in outer green areas. There are plenty of sites that can be built on, but they must be wrested from the greedy palms of property developers (and councillors) who want to reap maximum rewards from more overpriced 'luxury' developments.
To solve our housing problems a real revolution is needed. We need to build enough new social housing for it to be a form of genuine competition to the private rental market. This needs to be on premium sites in the city as well as in outer green areas. There are plenty of sites that can be built on, but they must be wrested from the greedy palms of property developers (and councillors) who want to reap maximum rewards from more overpriced 'luxury' developments. tisbury
  • Score: -17

10:58pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton.

Live with it.

I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away?

Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city.

Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.
Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton. Live with it. I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away? Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city. Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 49

11:56pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Warren Morgan says...

The space we have to build new homes is limited by the sea and the National Park ( a separate planning authority). What is built is rarely if ever affordable, and demand/property prices mean landlords buy up properties for the student and private rental markets.

New homes need infrastructure and employment space - often the same space as the new homes. Estates could be made higher density, but who wants to lose the green spaces around their homes. New homes need to be paid for by someone - whether private developers or social landlords like the council or housing associations.

Anyone who thinks there are easy answers to this, well they are either visionary or wrong. The solutions probably lie in a mix of developing more brownfield sites, increasing density on some estate sites in a way that preserves open space, looking at building new towns somewhere in the South East to ease the pressure regionally, and more innovative ways of funding the building of affordable units like housing co-operatives. More ideas welcome at ourcity@brightonhove
labour.com
The space we have to build new homes is limited by the sea and the National Park ( a separate planning authority). What is built is rarely if ever affordable, and demand/property prices mean landlords buy up properties for the student and private rental markets. New homes need infrastructure and employment space - often the same space as the new homes. Estates could be made higher density, but who wants to lose the green spaces around their homes. New homes need to be paid for by someone - whether private developers or social landlords like the council or housing associations. Anyone who thinks there are easy answers to this, well they are either visionary or wrong. The solutions probably lie in a mix of developing more brownfield sites, increasing density on some estate sites in a way that preserves open space, looking at building new towns somewhere in the South East to ease the pressure regionally, and more innovative ways of funding the building of affordable units like housing co-operatives. More ideas welcome at ourcity@brightonhove labour.com Warren Morgan
  • Score: 12

12:05am Sat 12 Jul 14

rolivan says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
The space we have to build new homes is limited by the sea and the National Park ( a separate planning authority). What is built is rarely if ever affordable, and demand/property prices mean landlords buy up properties for the student and private rental markets.

New homes need infrastructure and employment space - often the same space as the new homes. Estates could be made higher density, but who wants to lose the green spaces around their homes. New homes need to be paid for by someone - whether private developers or social landlords like the council or housing associations.

Anyone who thinks there are easy answers to this, well they are either visionary or wrong. The solutions probably lie in a mix of developing more brownfield sites, increasing density on some estate sites in a way that preserves open space, looking at building new towns somewhere in the South East to ease the pressure regionally, and more innovative ways of funding the building of affordable units like housing co-operatives. More ideas welcome at ourcity@brightonhove

labour.com
Warren Morgan how much Farmland does the Council own that it leases out why not sell it and use it to fund the building of Social Housing.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: The space we have to build new homes is limited by the sea and the National Park ( a separate planning authority). What is built is rarely if ever affordable, and demand/property prices mean landlords buy up properties for the student and private rental markets. New homes need infrastructure and employment space - often the same space as the new homes. Estates could be made higher density, but who wants to lose the green spaces around their homes. New homes need to be paid for by someone - whether private developers or social landlords like the council or housing associations. Anyone who thinks there are easy answers to this, well they are either visionary or wrong. The solutions probably lie in a mix of developing more brownfield sites, increasing density on some estate sites in a way that preserves open space, looking at building new towns somewhere in the South East to ease the pressure regionally, and more innovative ways of funding the building of affordable units like housing co-operatives. More ideas welcome at ourcity@brightonhove labour.com[/p][/quote]Warren Morgan how much Farmland does the Council own that it leases out why not sell it and use it to fund the building of Social Housing. rolivan
  • Score: -7

12:35am Sat 12 Jul 14

s_james says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.
Exactly right, so why have Labour scuppered the City Plan for at least another six months, and probably until after the election, thereby enabling all planning decisions to be taken in line with the NPPF? At least with a City Plan in place the council would have more influence over the type of development on the urban fringe, and exactly where it will go. This fudge opens up the whole open fringe for a developers' free for all. The urban fringe is less safe after today.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.[/p][/quote]Exactly right, so why have Labour scuppered the City Plan for at least another six months, and probably until after the election, thereby enabling all planning decisions to be taken in line with the NPPF? At least with a City Plan in place the council would have more influence over the type of development on the urban fringe, and exactly where it will go. This fudge opens up the whole open fringe for a developers' free for all. The urban fringe is less safe after today. s_james
  • Score: 2

12:36am Sat 12 Jul 14

s_james says...

Exactly right, so why have Labour scuppered the City Plan for at least another six months, and probably until after the election, thereby enabling all planning decisions to be taken in line with the NPPF? At least with a City Plan in place the council would have more influence over the type of development on the urban fringe, and exactly where it will go. This fudge opens up the whole open fringe for a developers' free for all. The urban fringe is less safe after today.
Exactly right, so why have Labour scuppered the City Plan for at least another six months, and probably until after the election, thereby enabling all planning decisions to be taken in line with the NPPF? At least with a City Plan in place the council would have more influence over the type of development on the urban fringe, and exactly where it will go. This fudge opens up the whole open fringe for a developers' free for all. The urban fringe is less safe after today. s_james
  • Score: 5

2:18am Sat 12 Jul 14

martyt says...

davedebrax wrote:
Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.
the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time
[quote][p][bold]davedebrax[/bold] wrote: Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.[/p][/quote]the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time martyt
  • Score: 22

2:21am Sat 12 Jul 14

martyt says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton.

Live with it.

I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away?

Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city.

Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.
the face of brighton and hove is the homeless sleeping in every doorway in the city centre ,it s shameful that people are sleep rough in 2014 in the uk let alone our city
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton. Live with it. I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away? Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city. Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.[/p][/quote]the face of brighton and hove is the homeless sleeping in every doorway in the city centre ,it s shameful that people are sleep rough in 2014 in the uk let alone our city martyt
  • Score: -1

2:35am Sat 12 Jul 14

Zeta Function says...

There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing.

Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now.

For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed.

There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.
There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing. Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now. For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed. There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc. Zeta Function
  • Score: -17

6:20am Sat 12 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

Chris Todd says we have to have the community with us with planning descisions like these. The thing is communities are never going want developments like these on their doorsteps. This is a pathetic attempt to kick the can down the road. In the meantime house prices continue to go up as demand exceeds supply.
Chris Todd says we have to have the community with us with planning descisions like these. The thing is communities are never going want developments like these on their doorsteps. This is a pathetic attempt to kick the can down the road. In the meantime house prices continue to go up as demand exceeds supply. Quiterie
  • Score: 5

7:30am Sat 12 Jul 14

hyram77 says...

Property prices in Brighton & Hove are directly linked to supply and demand. If you don't build new homes to satisfy the demand from the many buyers wanting to live here prices of existing housing stock will continue to soar! Feel sorry for today's youth as they have little chance of getting on the ladder with today's society objecting to any potential new build sites!
Property prices in Brighton & Hove are directly linked to supply and demand. If you don't build new homes to satisfy the demand from the many buyers wanting to live here prices of existing housing stock will continue to soar! Feel sorry for today's youth as they have little chance of getting on the ladder with today's society objecting to any potential new build sites! hyram77
  • Score: -4

8:04am Sat 12 Jul 14

We love Red Billy says...

Zeta Function wrote:
There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing.

Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now.

For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed.

There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.
Thank you Chairman Mao.
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing. Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now. For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed. There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.[/p][/quote]Thank you Chairman Mao. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 12

8:06am Sat 12 Jul 14

rogerthefish says...

I suggest you visit New road (now named New Calcutta) after 10pm to see the effects of the lack of housing, every shop doorway is full now and then the wooden bench takes the overflow, the selfish Nimbys are I understand thinking about their retirement pot, the problem stems from the wrong sort of housing on the estates, we need more high density flats here instead of houses, developers in the main are scared off Brighton and Hove by the slow and burdensome requirements of the can kicking planning department, who have ultimately caused this problem.
I suggest you visit New road (now named New Calcutta) after 10pm to see the effects of the lack of housing, every shop doorway is full now and then the wooden bench takes the overflow, the selfish Nimbys are I understand thinking about their retirement pot, the problem stems from the wrong sort of housing on the estates, we need more high density flats here instead of houses, developers in the main are scared off Brighton and Hove by the slow and burdensome requirements of the can kicking planning department, who have ultimately caused this problem. rogerthefish
  • Score: -4

8:21am Sat 12 Jul 14

tabman says...

Justin wrote:
It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area.
Don't be naive. They won't be able to afford homes in the proposed urban fringe sites either; they would be snapped up by people, many from London, with wads of cash in their pockets.
[quote][p][bold]Justin[/bold] wrote: It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area.[/p][/quote]Don't be naive. They won't be able to afford homes in the proposed urban fringe sites either; they would be snapped up by people, many from London, with wads of cash in their pockets. tabman
  • Score: 21

8:24am Sat 12 Jul 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The universities are bringing 5,000 additional students into the area and providing halls of residence for the first year of their studies on the old Co-op site and Preston Barracks sites and snapping up other prime city sites.
These students then have to find rented accommodation after their first year in halls. This additional 5,000 people coming into the city in a very short time will put significant additional pressure on the housing situation and also inflate house prices further as they move into former family homes. There is also an increase in the type of student, an increasing number are very wealthy Chinese and Indian students paying huge fees, so you can expect landlords to make the most of this wealth in the private sector.
Local housing needs will come second to this demand and locals will never get on the housing ladder when buy-to-let landlords are picking up homes. As for the New Road situation, many of these people are from all over the UK with addictions and mental health problems and putting them into a new housing estate in Ovingdean isn't the answer to their issues. It's the lack if mental health and addiction support. However, the increase in numbers of them in the city has not been explained by anyone from the services.
The universities are bringing 5,000 additional students into the area and providing halls of residence for the first year of their studies on the old Co-op site and Preston Barracks sites and snapping up other prime city sites. These students then have to find rented accommodation after their first year in halls. This additional 5,000 people coming into the city in a very short time will put significant additional pressure on the housing situation and also inflate house prices further as they move into former family homes. There is also an increase in the type of student, an increasing number are very wealthy Chinese and Indian students paying huge fees, so you can expect landlords to make the most of this wealth in the private sector. Local housing needs will come second to this demand and locals will never get on the housing ladder when buy-to-let landlords are picking up homes. As for the New Road situation, many of these people are from all over the UK with addictions and mental health problems and putting them into a new housing estate in Ovingdean isn't the answer to their issues. It's the lack if mental health and addiction support. However, the increase in numbers of them in the city has not been explained by anyone from the services. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 17

8:24am Sat 12 Jul 14

tabman says...

Wageslavemum wrote:
A small reprieve. Well done to the campaigners. Let's hope there is now adequate fact finding and consultation to find sustainable workable ways forward. Here's hoping.
Don't be naive. They won't be able to afford houses built on the urban fringe. They will be snapped up be people, many from London, who have wads of cash in their pockets. The new houses on the Eastwoods Nursery site and in Stanmer Park were all over half a million.
[quote][p][bold]Wageslavemum[/bold] wrote: A small reprieve. Well done to the campaigners. Let's hope there is now adequate fact finding and consultation to find sustainable workable ways forward. Here's hoping.[/p][/quote]Don't be naive. They won't be able to afford houses built on the urban fringe. They will be snapped up be people, many from London, who have wads of cash in their pockets. The new houses on the Eastwoods Nursery site and in Stanmer Park were all over half a million. tabman
  • Score: 11

8:38am Sat 12 Jul 14

hoveguyactually says...

martyt wrote:
davedebrax wrote:
Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.
the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time
This is absolutely right. In fact the permanent traffic jam applies to all approaches to Brighton and Hove. Commuting in and out is such a slow, soul-detroying experience, that many would prefer to live closer to their work. The whole situation with bus and cycle lanes needs a rethink, and then housing could be built further away from the city and well-needed beauty spots, allowing for easier means of getting in and out. But what hope, all the time we have the Greens in control? They are totally responsible for the chaos and congestion on our roads, yet they have the nerve to moan that they need to raise the council tax. The situation can only get worse with them in power.
[quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davedebrax[/bold] wrote: Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.[/p][/quote]the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time[/p][/quote]This is absolutely right. In fact the permanent traffic jam applies to all approaches to Brighton and Hove. Commuting in and out is such a slow, soul-detroying experience, that many would prefer to live closer to their work. The whole situation with bus and cycle lanes needs a rethink, and then housing could be built further away from the city and well-needed beauty spots, allowing for easier means of getting in and out. But what hope, all the time we have the Greens in control? They are totally responsible for the chaos and congestion on our roads, yet they have the nerve to moan that they need to raise the council tax. The situation can only get worse with them in power. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 7

9:09am Sat 12 Jul 14

Withdean-er says...

The 45 odd sites around the city fringes, were arbitrarily noted as urban fringe to preserved as green in a one-sided report. The council and its consultants did not involve the various landowners, many of these sites are tiny with NO public access to enjoy them, some have next to no ecological significance eg are not ancient woodland, are not even woodland nor have hedgerows or rare species of flora or fauna, and have no great aesthetic strength. It's all part of a game between the owners/developers and B&HCC. This has always been the way. Eventually compromises will be reached between central and local government, and B&HCC will find the places for the mandatory additional homes. Some will be on brownfield sites including at the site if long redundant offices and factories, and some will be on some of the urban fringe sites. It will happen, at it's determined by law from central government. B&HCC will have to contribute to the number of new homes needed.
The 45 odd sites around the city fringes, were arbitrarily noted as urban fringe to preserved as green in a one-sided report. The council and its consultants did not involve the various landowners, many of these sites are tiny with NO public access to enjoy them, some have next to no ecological significance eg are not ancient woodland, are not even woodland nor have hedgerows or rare species of flora or fauna, and have no great aesthetic strength. It's all part of a game between the owners/developers and B&HCC. This has always been the way. Eventually compromises will be reached between central and local government, and B&HCC will find the places for the mandatory additional homes. Some will be on brownfield sites including at the site if long redundant offices and factories, and some will be on some of the urban fringe sites. It will happen, at it's determined by law from central government. B&HCC will have to contribute to the number of new homes needed. Withdean-er
  • Score: 1

9:36am Sat 12 Jul 14

Max Ripple says...

Zeta Function wrote:
There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing.

Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now.

For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed.

There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.
There are plenty of large empty buildings around the city which have been bought up by developers and left to stand empty whilst they increase in value. It's call Land Banking. These should be turned into housing now. A big villa in Wellington Rd all boarded up for years, large office blocks all along Preston Rd by the park and others.

The roads that access the areas we are talking about like Warren Rd, Falmer Rd down to Rottingdean and the coast Rd are already absolutely chocker block with traffic and there is no chance of more through roads being built to enable access to these new housing estates and the city itself. Everything will come to a standstill. The Lewes Rd and coast rd 30 mph zones and bus lanes are only part of the problem.. Sheer volume being the other. But this would not be answered simply by providing more buses. People need cars to run businesses, tradesmen need vans to operate their trades and so on. See if Brighton and Hove buses will let a plumber on a bus with loads of pipe work and tools?!

Too many people wanting/needing to live in a city landlocked by the sea and South Downs is only going to get worse if we don't come up with more original ideas than simply building on greenfield sites.
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing. Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now. For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed. There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of large empty buildings around the city which have been bought up by developers and left to stand empty whilst they increase in value. It's call Land Banking. These should be turned into housing now. A big villa in Wellington Rd all boarded up for years, large office blocks all along Preston Rd by the park and others. The roads that access the areas we are talking about like Warren Rd, Falmer Rd down to Rottingdean and the coast Rd are already absolutely chocker block with traffic and there is no chance of more through roads being built to enable access to these new housing estates and the city itself. Everything will come to a standstill. The Lewes Rd and coast rd 30 mph zones and bus lanes are only part of the problem.. Sheer volume being the other. But this would not be answered simply by providing more buses. People need cars to run businesses, tradesmen need vans to operate their trades and so on. See if Brighton and Hove buses will let a plumber on a bus with loads of pipe work and tools?! Too many people wanting/needing to live in a city landlocked by the sea and South Downs is only going to get worse if we don't come up with more original ideas than simply building on greenfield sites. Max Ripple
  • Score: 10

9:43am Sat 12 Jul 14

Max Ripple says...

rogerthefish wrote:
I suggest you visit New road (now named New Calcutta) after 10pm to see the effects of the lack of housing, every shop doorway is full now and then the wooden bench takes the overflow, the selfish Nimbys are I understand thinking about their retirement pot, the problem stems from the wrong sort of housing on the estates, we need more high density flats here instead of houses, developers in the main are scared off Brighton and Hove by the slow and burdensome requirements of the can kicking planning department, who have ultimately caused this problem.
High density flats and high rise estates cause. More social problems than any other form of housing. Ok, let's increase the density of our housing and go back to the pre-war slums that Brighton managed to get rid of so that the lives of its inhabitants could be improved rather than living in cramped conditions on top of each other. When we hear about families living in one or two rooms and suffering from lack of hygiene and infestation we all rightly object and try to improve their situations. Ok, so let's cram them all in to high density blocks of flats. Blocks that encourage crime and social deprivation. But at least they've got a roof over their heads, you say. Yes, but at what cost?
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: I suggest you visit New road (now named New Calcutta) after 10pm to see the effects of the lack of housing, every shop doorway is full now and then the wooden bench takes the overflow, the selfish Nimbys are I understand thinking about their retirement pot, the problem stems from the wrong sort of housing on the estates, we need more high density flats here instead of houses, developers in the main are scared off Brighton and Hove by the slow and burdensome requirements of the can kicking planning department, who have ultimately caused this problem.[/p][/quote]High density flats and high rise estates cause. More social problems than any other form of housing. Ok, let's increase the density of our housing and go back to the pre-war slums that Brighton managed to get rid of so that the lives of its inhabitants could be improved rather than living in cramped conditions on top of each other. When we hear about families living in one or two rooms and suffering from lack of hygiene and infestation we all rightly object and try to improve their situations. Ok, so let's cram them all in to high density blocks of flats. Blocks that encourage crime and social deprivation. But at least they've got a roof over their heads, you say. Yes, but at what cost? Max Ripple
  • Score: 7

10:07am Sat 12 Jul 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Is this the same Chris Todd (Brighton Friends of the Earth) quoted here who was pushing the council to build a massive floodlit sports pitch at Dorothy Stringer, in the absence of any proper wildlife surveys, as the planning documents quoting the Brighton & Hove Wildlife Forum and East Sussex County Council's ecologist made clear? He obviously wants somewhere for his son to play football, but isn't quite so keen for people to have affordable housing now. It's hard to take his views seriously.
Is this the same Chris Todd (Brighton Friends of the Earth) quoted here who was pushing the council to build a massive floodlit sports pitch at Dorothy Stringer, in the absence of any proper wildlife surveys, as the planning documents quoting the Brighton & Hove Wildlife Forum and East Sussex County Council's ecologist made clear? He obviously wants somewhere for his son to play football, but isn't quite so keen for people to have affordable housing now. It's hard to take his views seriously. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

10:13am Sat 12 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.
I think you've missed the point a bit. We, Brighton , NEED new homes, and there aren't that many (if any) brownfield sites to build on. I totally accept that this isn't an ideal site - but then where is? Even when people try to build in the urban part of Brighton there are complaints about the density of population and the strain on local facilities.

This isn't a victory for environmentalists, it's a victory for people who have their heads stuck firmly in their little patch of sand. We have some serious problems to face in the South East of England and they won't be solved by hiding behind rhetoric or by taking a reactionary stance every time there's a tricky planning decision to be made. Aren't you supposed to be Labour?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.[/p][/quote]I think you've missed the point a bit. We, Brighton , NEED new homes, and there aren't that many (if any) brownfield sites to build on. I totally accept that this isn't an ideal site - but then where is? Even when people try to build in the urban part of Brighton there are complaints about the density of population and the strain on local facilities. This isn't a victory for environmentalists, it's a victory for people who have their heads stuck firmly in their little patch of sand. We have some serious problems to face in the South East of England and they won't be solved by hiding behind rhetoric or by taking a reactionary stance every time there's a tricky planning decision to be made. Aren't you supposed to be Labour? Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 0

10:29am Sat 12 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Max Ripple wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing.

Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now.

For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed.

There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.
There are plenty of large empty buildings around the city which have been bought up by developers and left to stand empty whilst they increase in value. It's call Land Banking. These should be turned into housing now. A big villa in Wellington Rd all boarded up for years, large office blocks all along Preston Rd by the park and others.

The roads that access the areas we are talking about like Warren Rd, Falmer Rd down to Rottingdean and the coast Rd are already absolutely chocker block with traffic and there is no chance of more through roads being built to enable access to these new housing estates and the city itself. Everything will come to a standstill. The Lewes Rd and coast rd 30 mph zones and bus lanes are only part of the problem.. Sheer volume being the other. But this would not be answered simply by providing more buses. People need cars to run businesses, tradesmen need vans to operate their trades and so on. See if Brighton and Hove buses will let a plumber on a bus with loads of pipe work and tools?!

Too many people wanting/needing to live in a city landlocked by the sea and South Downs is only going to get worse if we don't come up with more original ideas than simply building on greenfield sites.
But even when people propose re-developing commercial properties there's opposition. There was a story on here a few months ago about an old police station being turned into flats. Have a guess as to whether the locals were opposed or in favour!

You are correct when you say that we must come up with more original ideas than just building on greenfield sites, but that position has a corollary: you can't just give a knee-jerk 'No' every time someone proposes building on a greenfield site. We DO need to do it, especially in Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing. Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now. For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed. There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of large empty buildings around the city which have been bought up by developers and left to stand empty whilst they increase in value. It's call Land Banking. These should be turned into housing now. A big villa in Wellington Rd all boarded up for years, large office blocks all along Preston Rd by the park and others. The roads that access the areas we are talking about like Warren Rd, Falmer Rd down to Rottingdean and the coast Rd are already absolutely chocker block with traffic and there is no chance of more through roads being built to enable access to these new housing estates and the city itself. Everything will come to a standstill. The Lewes Rd and coast rd 30 mph zones and bus lanes are only part of the problem.. Sheer volume being the other. But this would not be answered simply by providing more buses. People need cars to run businesses, tradesmen need vans to operate their trades and so on. See if Brighton and Hove buses will let a plumber on a bus with loads of pipe work and tools?! Too many people wanting/needing to live in a city landlocked by the sea and South Downs is only going to get worse if we don't come up with more original ideas than simply building on greenfield sites.[/p][/quote]But even when people propose re-developing commercial properties there's opposition. There was a story on here a few months ago about an old police station being turned into flats. Have a guess as to whether the locals were opposed or in favour! You are correct when you say that we must come up with more original ideas than just building on greenfield sites, but that position has a corollary: you can't just give a knee-jerk 'No' every time someone proposes building on a greenfield site. We DO need to do it, especially in Brighton. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 1

10:46am Sat 12 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton.

Live with it.

I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away?

Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city.

Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.
People as thick as Ambro forget (or choose to ignore) the main reason why new housing is needed is because of immigration, both in the number of new arrivals and in the offspring they subsequently produce.

No-one of his intelligence will ever earn the vast sums necessary for living in Mayfair.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton. Live with it. I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away? Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city. Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.[/p][/quote]People as thick as Ambro forget (or choose to ignore) the main reason why new housing is needed is because of immigration, both in the number of new arrivals and in the offspring they subsequently produce. No-one of his intelligence will ever earn the vast sums necessary for living in Mayfair. stevo!!
  • Score: -13

11:13am Sat 12 Jul 14

matlock says...

The only reason we 'need' more housing is due to the 250,000 to 500,000 foreigners inviting themselves into our country each year.
The only reason we 'need' more housing is due to the 250,000 to 500,000 foreigners inviting themselves into our country each year. matlock
  • Score: -8

11:23am Sat 12 Jul 14

wippasnapper says...

I have to say B&HCC have more than anoth brown field suits that they could build upon but chose not to, some time ago the Conservative Council set up a tenant led Group to look for unused Council land with the possibility of building new homes today the only homes they have built witch was first identified under the Conservative Council is in Wellington Rd under the Green council we have heard proposal after proposal for green field suits and not taking into account the tenant led Groups findings let alone the many suits that could have been used for new affordable homes that has been handed over to Brighton University for student accommodation ironically pushing the people how work into the outlying eara’s wile giving the student population more central places to live.
I have to say B&HCC have more than anoth brown field suits that they could build upon but chose not to, some time ago the Conservative Council set up a tenant led Group to look for unused Council land with the possibility of building new homes today the only homes they have built witch was first identified under the Conservative Council is in Wellington Rd under the Green council we have heard proposal after proposal for green field suits and not taking into account the tenant led Groups findings let alone the many suits that could have been used for new affordable homes that has been handed over to Brighton University for student accommodation ironically pushing the people how work into the outlying eara’s wile giving the student population more central places to live. wippasnapper
  • Score: 3

11:55am Sat 12 Jul 14

Fozborn says...

I live in Brighton & Hove and enjoy walking and biking in the green space around its fringes. I'm also aware of the brown field sites in the city and more aware than most for the reasons a lot of these sites remain undeveloped or under utilised. These brown field sites should of course be put to use. Unfortunately more often than not unrealistic planning requirements imposed by the planning department under Martin Randall and his side kick Jeanette Walsh (or is he the sidekick??) mean that these sites often cannot be viably developed.
However even if our failing planning department was sorted out demand for housing would not be satisfied by brown field sites alone. Building on the city fringes is regrettably inevitable if we are to provide homes for future generations. Increased supply will ultimately deliver real affordable housing. To those nimbys out there I'd simply ask how they think their houses in the suburbs were built?
Warren Morgan's comments above expose the hypocrisy of most politicians and the planning system. To paraphrase his comments: "Don't build around Brighton & Hove but build somewhere else in the South East."
This is vile opportunistic politicking. If adopted by every local authority we would get nowhere - oh wait that is exactly what's happening!
Our children and our children's children deserve homes to live in. Population growth in the south east is not going to go away and ignoring the problem as our politicians and planners do will only give rise to the views of extremists. Fortunately for now we have the relatively harmless Mr Farage and UKIP but if the next generation has to grow up with no homes to live in then blaming "all them foreign people" will be an easy bandwagon to start rolling. When really the people to blame are in the Argus article above. Giving up a relatively small percentage of our green space seems a small price to pay.
I live in Brighton & Hove and enjoy walking and biking in the green space around its fringes. I'm also aware of the brown field sites in the city and more aware than most for the reasons a lot of these sites remain undeveloped or under utilised. These brown field sites should of course be put to use. Unfortunately more often than not unrealistic planning requirements imposed by the planning department under Martin Randall and his side kick Jeanette Walsh (or is he the sidekick??) mean that these sites often cannot be viably developed. However even if our failing planning department was sorted out demand for housing would not be satisfied by brown field sites alone. Building on the city fringes is regrettably inevitable if we are to provide homes for future generations. Increased supply will ultimately deliver real affordable housing. To those nimbys out there I'd simply ask how they think their houses in the suburbs were built? Warren Morgan's comments above expose the hypocrisy of most politicians and the planning system. To paraphrase his comments: "Don't build around Brighton & Hove but build somewhere else in the South East." This is vile opportunistic politicking. If adopted by every local authority we would get nowhere - oh wait that is exactly what's happening! Our children and our children's children deserve homes to live in. Population growth in the south east is not going to go away and ignoring the problem as our politicians and planners do will only give rise to the views of extremists. Fortunately for now we have the relatively harmless Mr Farage and UKIP but if the next generation has to grow up with no homes to live in then blaming "all them foreign people" will be an easy bandwagon to start rolling. When really the people to blame are in the Argus article above. Giving up a relatively small percentage of our green space seems a small price to pay. Fozborn
  • Score: -1

12:41pm Sat 12 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Fozborn wrote:
I live in Brighton & Hove and enjoy walking and biking in the green space around its fringes. I'm also aware of the brown field sites in the city and more aware than most for the reasons a lot of these sites remain undeveloped or under utilised. These brown field sites should of course be put to use. Unfortunately more often than not unrealistic planning requirements imposed by the planning department under Martin Randall and his side kick Jeanette Walsh (or is he the sidekick??) mean that these sites often cannot be viably developed.
However even if our failing planning department was sorted out demand for housing would not be satisfied by brown field sites alone. Building on the city fringes is regrettably inevitable if we are to provide homes for future generations. Increased supply will ultimately deliver real affordable housing. To those nimbys out there I'd simply ask how they think their houses in the suburbs were built?
Warren Morgan's comments above expose the hypocrisy of most politicians and the planning system. To paraphrase his comments: "Don't build around Brighton & Hove but build somewhere else in the South East."
This is vile opportunistic politicking. If adopted by every local authority we would get nowhere - oh wait that is exactly what's happening!
Our children and our children's children deserve homes to live in. Population growth in the south east is not going to go away and ignoring the problem as our politicians and planners do will only give rise to the views of extremists. Fortunately for now we have the relatively harmless Mr Farage and UKIP but if the next generation has to grow up with no homes to live in then blaming "all them foreign people" will be an easy bandwagon to start rolling. When really the people to blame are in the Argus article above. Giving up a relatively small percentage of our green space seems a small price to pay.
A fine post spoiled only by a couple of inaccuracies.

It isn't 'extreme' to hold the view that our countryside should be protected. As we have seen, once it is gone it is NEVER reclaimed.

Further, it also isn't 'extreme' to be able to point out why extra housing is needed.

It's false accusations like yours that have prevented proper discussions on this problem (and therefore solving it) over the past 50 years.
[quote][p][bold]Fozborn[/bold] wrote: I live in Brighton & Hove and enjoy walking and biking in the green space around its fringes. I'm also aware of the brown field sites in the city and more aware than most for the reasons a lot of these sites remain undeveloped or under utilised. These brown field sites should of course be put to use. Unfortunately more often than not unrealistic planning requirements imposed by the planning department under Martin Randall and his side kick Jeanette Walsh (or is he the sidekick??) mean that these sites often cannot be viably developed. However even if our failing planning department was sorted out demand for housing would not be satisfied by brown field sites alone. Building on the city fringes is regrettably inevitable if we are to provide homes for future generations. Increased supply will ultimately deliver real affordable housing. To those nimbys out there I'd simply ask how they think their houses in the suburbs were built? Warren Morgan's comments above expose the hypocrisy of most politicians and the planning system. To paraphrase his comments: "Don't build around Brighton & Hove but build somewhere else in the South East." This is vile opportunistic politicking. If adopted by every local authority we would get nowhere - oh wait that is exactly what's happening! Our children and our children's children deserve homes to live in. Population growth in the south east is not going to go away and ignoring the problem as our politicians and planners do will only give rise to the views of extremists. Fortunately for now we have the relatively harmless Mr Farage and UKIP but if the next generation has to grow up with no homes to live in then blaming "all them foreign people" will be an easy bandwagon to start rolling. When really the people to blame are in the Argus article above. Giving up a relatively small percentage of our green space seems a small price to pay.[/p][/quote]A fine post spoiled only by a couple of inaccuracies. It isn't 'extreme' to hold the view that our countryside should be protected. As we have seen, once it is gone it is NEVER reclaimed. Further, it also isn't 'extreme' to be able to point out why extra housing is needed. It's false accusations like yours that have prevented proper discussions on this problem (and therefore solving it) over the past 50 years. stevo!!
  • Score: -13

12:46pm Sat 12 Jul 14

rolivan says...

Meanwhile the prices of house will go up another 5%.
Meanwhile the prices of house will go up another 5%. rolivan
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Sat 12 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

matlock wrote:
The only reason we 'need' more housing is due to the 250,000 to 500,000 foreigners inviting themselves into our country each year.
Correct.
[quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: The only reason we 'need' more housing is due to the 250,000 to 500,000 foreigners inviting themselves into our country each year.[/p][/quote]Correct. stevo!!
  • Score: -9

12:55pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Lady Smith says...

Justin wrote:
It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area.
You're letting your prejudices avoid the real issue. There are plenty of undeveloped brownfield sites within the city boundaries which developers could build on, without having to destroy green sites. The ridiculous housing prices have been caused by decades of London-based buyers, where the average earnings are way above those in Brighton, scooping up properties for buy-to-let development with ready cash.
[quote][p][bold]Justin[/bold] wrote: It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area.[/p][/quote]You're letting your prejudices avoid the real issue. There are plenty of undeveloped brownfield sites within the city boundaries which developers could build on, without having to destroy green sites. The ridiculous housing prices have been caused by decades of London-based buyers, where the average earnings are way above those in Brighton, scooping up properties for buy-to-let development with ready cash. Lady Smith
  • Score: 5

12:57pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Lady Smith says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton.

Live with it.

I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away?

Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city.

Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.
Well said!
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton. Live with it. I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away? Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city. Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.[/p][/quote]Well said! Lady Smith
  • Score: 8

1:24pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Patsyr says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton.

Live with it.

I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away?

Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city.

Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.
Of course it is about immigration. If more people are choosing to move to and settle in this country and favour the SE then there is more demand for housing here. Obvious really.

What we need are some of the ugly derelict buildings around the town to be converted, or pulled down and the sites built on. Build real council housing and keep that housing stock as council housing. DO NOT SELL IT. I f a tenant wants to buy he needs to leave that council house for somebody else who has a need and buy on the open market.

If Margaret Thatcher had the law changed to allow tenants to buy their council house and at a reduced rate then change the law back. If Brussels would allow us to.

When all the new student housing on London Road begins to be occupied perhaps some of the houses around Bear Road and Coombe Road will revert to being family homes. If there is still not enough student housing then more needs to be built to enable the aforementioned housing to revert to family use.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton. Live with it. I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away? Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city. Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.[/p][/quote]Of course it is about immigration. If more people are choosing to move to and settle in this country and favour the SE then there is more demand for housing here. Obvious really. What we need are some of the ugly derelict buildings around the town to be converted, or pulled down and the sites built on. Build real council housing and keep that housing stock as council housing. DO NOT SELL IT. I f a tenant wants to buy he needs to leave that council house for somebody else who has a need and buy on the open market. If Margaret Thatcher had the law changed to allow tenants to buy their council house and at a reduced rate then change the law back. If Brussels would allow us to. When all the new student housing on London Road begins to be occupied perhaps some of the houses around Bear Road and Coombe Road will revert to being family homes. If there is still not enough student housing then more needs to be built to enable the aforementioned housing to revert to family use. Patsyr
  • Score: -3

1:46pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

As someone has already pointed out, are people really that naive that they think any new houses being built will help people on the housing waiting list? These will be large luxury houses that will not be given to anyone on a waiting list.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you all.
As someone has already pointed out, are people really that naive that they think any new houses being built will help people on the housing waiting list? These will be large luxury houses that will not be given to anyone on a waiting list. Sorry to burst that bubble for you all. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 6

4:22pm Sat 12 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
As someone has already pointed out, are people really that naive that they think any new houses being built will help people on the housing waiting list? These will be large luxury houses that will not be given to anyone on a waiting list.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you all.
And with you being a racist, you'll object to English people being able to buy any new homes.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: As someone has already pointed out, are people really that naive that they think any new houses being built will help people on the housing waiting list? These will be large luxury houses that will not be given to anyone on a waiting list. Sorry to burst that bubble for you all.[/p][/quote]And with you being a racist, you'll object to English people being able to buy any new homes. stevo!!
  • Score: -10

5:11pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Zeta Function says...

Lady Smith wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton.

Live with it.

I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away?

Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city.

Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.
Well said!
How green is green?

Toxic slime is green.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Lots of people can't afford to live in Brighton. Live with it. I'd love a house in Mayfair but it's not going to happen so that's life. I guess I'll just live outside of the area I'd like to be in. What's wrong with people who can't afford to live in Brighton having to live a 15 minute train ride away? Building on and generally f****ing up all the green space around Brighton is not the step forward. It will only transform Brighton into just another faceless city. Despite what that BNP p***k Stevo says, this is not about immigration or UKIP it's about protecting the city and stopping it becoming just one large urban sprawl.[/p][/quote]Well said![/p][/quote]How green is green? Toxic slime is green. Zeta Function
  • Score: 1

6:29pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Zeta Function wrote:
There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing.

Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now.

For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed.

There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.
Come from Siberia do you?
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing. Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now. For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed. There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.[/p][/quote]Come from Siberia do you? Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 2

6:35pm Sat 12 Jul 14

rolivan says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing.

Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now.

For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed.

There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.
Come from Siberia do you?
Do you mean like the Golden Acres in Surrenden? I think they are all private . I Think Council owned about 10 acres there in the early 70s.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: There are people on the housing waiting list in this city living in dire conditions who've spent years and years reflecting on the lack of housing. Having more 'time to reflect' is a luxury the well housed can enjoy. It is however an insult to people who desperately need housing, now. For some it's already too late. The kids have grown,, parents have died. Time has passed. There is a lack of architectural vision. The council should buy up villas and their vast gardens when they come on the market for sale, demolish them and build medium rise and low rise flats with play areas for kids and shared gardens, etc.[/p][/quote]Come from Siberia do you?[/p][/quote]Do you mean like the Golden Acres in Surrenden? I think they are all private . I Think Council owned about 10 acres there in the early 70s. rolivan
  • Score: 1

6:47pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Fairfax Aches says...

another pathetic victory for the NIMBY mob and its right wing propoganda machine The Argus. I'm sure most of these type have no family or children much less any sense of civic or social decency.
another pathetic victory for the NIMBY mob and its right wing propoganda machine The Argus. I'm sure most of these type have no family or children much less any sense of civic or social decency. Fairfax Aches
  • Score: -4

7:08pm Sat 12 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"Of course it is about immigration. If more people are choosing to move to and settle in this country and favour the SE then there is more demand for housing here. Obvious really."

Yes, it is obvious, but not obvious enough, apparently.

If a country keeps growing, it needs to build more of everything.
"Of course it is about immigration. If more people are choosing to move to and settle in this country and favour the SE then there is more demand for housing here. Obvious really." Yes, it is obvious, but not obvious enough, apparently. If a country keeps growing, it needs to build more of everything. stevo!!
  • Score: -5

9:40pm Sat 12 Jul 14

salty_pete says...

Many of these urban fringe sites are at the extreme edge of the city, where bus services are few and far between. If they get developed they will naturally create, inevitably, more traffic in a city that hates cars. Unless you only allow young fit and healthy people to live in them, ie cyclists and discriminate against those who are infirm, elderly, disabled or have young children but no car. To be stuck at the top of a very steep hill where the buses are once an hour would isolate many vulnerable people if inappropriate development was allowed. To get the maximum out of our brownfield sites should be the priority, and leave these urban fringe sites to be enjoyed as open space and as gateways to the SDNP.
Many of these urban fringe sites are at the extreme edge of the city, where bus services are few and far between. If they get developed they will naturally create, inevitably, more traffic in a city that hates cars. Unless you only allow young fit and healthy people to live in them, ie cyclists and discriminate against those who are infirm, elderly, disabled or have young children but no car. To be stuck at the top of a very steep hill where the buses are once an hour would isolate many vulnerable people if inappropriate development was allowed. To get the maximum out of our brownfield sites should be the priority, and leave these urban fringe sites to be enjoyed as open space and as gateways to the SDNP. salty_pete
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Sat 12 Jul 14

brighton bluenose says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
martyt wrote:
davedebrax wrote:
Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.
the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time
This is absolutely right. In fact the permanent traffic jam applies to all approaches to Brighton and Hove. Commuting in and out is such a slow, soul-detroying experience, that many would prefer to live closer to their work. The whole situation with bus and cycle lanes needs a rethink, and then housing could be built further away from the city and well-needed beauty spots, allowing for easier means of getting in and out. But what hope, all the time we have the Greens in control? They are totally responsible for the chaos and congestion on our roads, yet they have the nerve to moan that they need to raise the council tax. The situation can only get worse with them in power.
As ever you seem to deliberately forget that London Road and east A259 bus lanes were introduced by Tory/ Labour administrations so quite how the Greens are responsible for all this 'chaos' is beyond me!! But then you want to build even more housing further out, do away with all bus lanes and then let everyone commute into the centre anyway - if that doesn't sound like an ill-thought out recipe for even more of the 'chaos' that you currently rail against then I don't know what is!!
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davedebrax[/bold] wrote: Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.[/p][/quote]the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time[/p][/quote]This is absolutely right. In fact the permanent traffic jam applies to all approaches to Brighton and Hove. Commuting in and out is such a slow, soul-detroying experience, that many would prefer to live closer to their work. The whole situation with bus and cycle lanes needs a rethink, and then housing could be built further away from the city and well-needed beauty spots, allowing for easier means of getting in and out. But what hope, all the time we have the Greens in control? They are totally responsible for the chaos and congestion on our roads, yet they have the nerve to moan that they need to raise the council tax. The situation can only get worse with them in power.[/p][/quote]As ever you seem to deliberately forget that London Road and east A259 bus lanes were introduced by Tory/ Labour administrations so quite how the Greens are responsible for all this 'chaos' is beyond me!! But then you want to build even more housing further out, do away with all bus lanes and then let everyone commute into the centre anyway - if that doesn't sound like an ill-thought out recipe for even more of the 'chaos' that you currently rail against then I don't know what is!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -4

10:15pm Sat 12 Jul 14

brighton bluenose says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
martyt wrote:
davedebrax wrote:
Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.
the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time
This is absolutely right. In fact the permanent traffic jam applies to all approaches to Brighton and Hove. Commuting in and out is such a slow, soul-detroying experience, that many would prefer to live closer to their work. The whole situation with bus and cycle lanes needs a rethink, and then housing could be built further away from the city and well-needed beauty spots, allowing for easier means of getting in and out. But what hope, all the time we have the Greens in control? They are totally responsible for the chaos and congestion on our roads, yet they have the nerve to moan that they need to raise the council tax. The situation can only get worse with them in power.
As ever you seem to deliberately forget that London Road and east A259 bus lanes were introduced by Tory/ Labour administrations so quite how the Greens are responsible for all this 'chaos' is beyond me!! But then you want to build even more housing further out, do away with all bus lanes and then let everyone commute into the centre anyway - if that doesn't sound like an ill-thought out recipe for even more of the 'chaos' that you currently rail against then I don't know what is!!
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davedebrax[/bold] wrote: Nowadays Warren road is a permanent traffic jam. Makes little sense to build houses in areas that are not connected by cheap, efficient and fluid public transports.[/p][/quote]the traffic jam is caused by the greens and there lewes road bus and cycle lanes ,if the greens did not stuff the flow of all traffic ,buses could move at a safe speed of 30 mph and people could get to were they want it good time[/p][/quote]This is absolutely right. In fact the permanent traffic jam applies to all approaches to Brighton and Hove. Commuting in and out is such a slow, soul-detroying experience, that many would prefer to live closer to their work. The whole situation with bus and cycle lanes needs a rethink, and then housing could be built further away from the city and well-needed beauty spots, allowing for easier means of getting in and out. But what hope, all the time we have the Greens in control? They are totally responsible for the chaos and congestion on our roads, yet they have the nerve to moan that they need to raise the council tax. The situation can only get worse with them in power.[/p][/quote]As ever you seem to deliberately forget that London Road and east A259 bus lanes were introduced by Tory/ Labour administrations so quite how the Greens are responsible for all this 'chaos' is beyond me!! But then you want to build even more housing further out, do away with all bus lanes and then let everyone commute into the centre anyway - if that doesn't sound like an ill-thought out recipe for even more of the 'chaos' that you currently rail against then I don't know what is!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -1

8:16am Sun 13 Jul 14

Justin says...

tabman wrote:
Justin wrote:
It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area.
Don't be naive. They won't be able to afford homes in the proposed urban fringe sites either; they would be snapped up by people, many from London, with wads of cash in their pockets.
That's a straw man argument. I didn't suggest that those who can't afford to live here would buy homes in any particular spot. More houses means prices rise slower and this helps all buyers whichever end of the market you are looking at.
[quote][p][bold]tabman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Justin[/bold] wrote: It's a great shame that this campaign by miserable NIMBYs and green fanatics is going to delay much needed new homes in Brighton & Hove. Stop being so selfish and try to think about those who can't afford to stay in the area.[/p][/quote]Don't be naive. They won't be able to afford homes in the proposed urban fringe sites either; they would be snapped up by people, many from London, with wads of cash in their pockets.[/p][/quote]That's a straw man argument. I didn't suggest that those who can't afford to live here would buy homes in any particular spot. More houses means prices rise slower and this helps all buyers whichever end of the market you are looking at. Justin
  • Score: -2

10:14am Sun 13 Jul 14

Matt Grout says...

Lord Bingham wrote:
Well done NIMBYs! Where do you suggest housing should be built then...in the sea?
Somewhere where there is adequate infrastructure to support th
Needs of the existing and new population. Otherwise the area will ecome a pocket of social and economic depravity and will have be supporte d by the rest of the city. Which means higher council tax and reduced services for veryone. Alternatively build on the brownfield sites which have more established infrastructure which can be developed more easily and cheaply.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Bingham[/bold] wrote: Well done NIMBYs! Where do you suggest housing should be built then...in the sea?[/p][/quote]Somewhere where there is adequate infrastructure to support th Needs of the existing and new population. Otherwise the area will ecome a pocket of social and economic depravity and will have be supporte d by the rest of the city. Which means higher council tax and reduced services for veryone. Alternatively build on the brownfield sites which have more established infrastructure which can be developed more easily and cheaply. Matt Grout
  • Score: 1

10:26am Sun 13 Jul 14

Matt Grout says...

s_james wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.
Exactly right, so why have Labour scuppered the City Plan for at least another six months, and probably until after the election, thereby enabling all planning decisions to be taken in line with the NPPF? At least with a City Plan in place the council would have more influence over the type of development on the urban fringe, and exactly where it will go. This fudge opens up the whole open fringe for a developers' free for all. The urban fringe is less safe after today.
You are wrong see my previous post. The density of housing allocation in some areas will completely destroy those areas. The proposal would not have protected anything as the sites that were added as a sacrifice would have not satisfied the developers of private houses. They would just be any easy kill and the developers would then move on any other green spaces. Best to proceed with developing the brownfield sites for social housing. I know this means that we will not have a city plan for longer, but it is fairer and has more chance of success as every planning application can fought for on a site by site basis with all the arguments being understood by everyone. And it is with the political tide as the government know that they will have to change their policy to brownfield rather than greenfield
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: A small reprieve indeed. The Conservative government's National Planning Policy Framework effectively removes the power of councils to stop developments like this, presuming in favour of developers and enabling them to build on greenfield rather than brownfield sites, then sell the properties to landlords in the buy to let market who rent to people fleeing rising house prices in London - not the 170000 people looking for affordable homes locally.[/p][/quote]Exactly right, so why have Labour scuppered the City Plan for at least another six months, and probably until after the election, thereby enabling all planning decisions to be taken in line with the NPPF? At least with a City Plan in place the council would have more influence over the type of development on the urban fringe, and exactly where it will go. This fudge opens up the whole open fringe for a developers' free for all. The urban fringe is less safe after today.[/p][/quote]You are wrong see my previous post. The density of housing allocation in some areas will completely destroy those areas. The proposal would not have protected anything as the sites that were added as a sacrifice would have not satisfied the developers of private houses. They would just be any easy kill and the developers would then move on any other green spaces. Best to proceed with developing the brownfield sites for social housing. I know this means that we will not have a city plan for longer, but it is fairer and has more chance of success as every planning application can fought for on a site by site basis with all the arguments being understood by everyone. And it is with the political tide as the government know that they will have to change their policy to brownfield rather than greenfield Matt Grout
  • Score: -1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree