I would refuse. Builders think they can solve everything by buying people off. There is way to much building being thrown up these days. Our villages are being destroyed by these bulk builders building the same ugly innapropriate soulless characterless houses. The UK is changing in character and appearance and it’s not for the better.
Nimby's the lot of you. Or that is what a lot of people would say. We have town cramming, and then we have villages that dont want new housing. I'd be inclined to say, if there really is a need for all these thousands of houses they say we need, that all places should be allocated a certain number of new houses, the problem at the moment is that they just dump a figure on one area and the local authority builds them all in one place. How about giving all towns a percentage and all villages a percentage, and spread the housing out a bit. And what about all those, we keep hearing about, "up north" that have been abandoned. There are thousands of houses in all parts of the country standing empty. In my town there are empty, shite holes that need demolishing, but they are "listed" ruins that basically nobody wants.
Ah yes but the people who want a free house want them further south rather than being grateful for a roof over their head wherever it may be. We need to build and that's it. What are the local councils to do? Government demands it so they must comply; they're talking about removing planning powers from those that don't. Although that would probably help for Woking lol
The most obvious solution to reduce the need for so many new houses , plus the ever burgeoning problem of over-population in the future ; why didn't I think of it before ??.......................................CANNIBALISM !!!!!!
I would be a proud Nimby On a more serious note:- I went to a meeting with some builder/planners and their idea was quite good (bearing in mind the government directive to each authority on how many houses they must build). This was a plan to build 5,000 houses just outside the edge of a town and on the border of three authorities - which would solve some of the compulsory building for all of them. One of the big problems that has shown up in the past is that the big builders/planners don't end up putting in all the infrastructure that they promise because they 'run out of money' . This scheme should be able to get around that problem - I hope. The new 'town' will be made up of five villages and each village will have its own schools, shopping centre, health centre etc. Each village will have different types of accommodation which will include social housing as well as 'shared' purchasing (two or three people buying the different sized properties, with financing schemes already in place), affordable apartments, small houses and larger houses. The first 'village' will be built and the properties sold/rented to finance the second 'village'. The developers won't be allowed to start on the next village until they have made a success of the previous one. Certain infrastructure (roads and services) will have to be started on the other villages before the first one has been built. Space has already been allocated for a park/wildlife area for the residents of the villages. The total site area, bought from a company pension fund, had originally had planning applications in for 20,000 houses . The developers that are proposing this do not have shareholders. The senior staff are well paid but the company's constitution says that the 'profits' must be ploughed back into further development of the site. How much this is pie in the sky (they've built successfully elsewhere) I don't know, but it sounds more reasonable than all the other developments going on around us.
We had a few new houses build near here, only ten right by the school and they can't sell them, out of 10, 4 are lived in, built 5 years ago
