Downland being sold off by council

[happypig]

We need houses. Whether we need some of them for people who have more recently come to the UK is (relatively) immaterial.
The fact that people are sleeping in shop doorways is a scandal and we, as a society, should hang our heads in shame. Housing shouldn't be a means for private landlords to make a profit out of the taxpayer.

 

[Brovion]

I realise that any sane individual does not advocate genocide as a way of reducing house prices ( strokes chin whilst in deep thought ) but we really do need to either give up on some greenfield areas or stop moaning about the cost of housing. Stark choice.

You are quite correct. Sometimes there is no ideal solution, only a 'least worst' option. For Sussex we either build more homes on greenfield sites (plus the infrastructure to support them which often gets overlooked) or we keep our housing stock pretty much as it is and allow the ever-increasing demand to push prices and rents up to a level where Sussex becomes almost an English version of Beverley Hills. As you've pointed out we have limited brownfield sites available, and even then there's a limit as to how many people you can cram onto Shoreham Harbour for example. (Infrastructure again).

Difficult choices ahead.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Taking Brighton and Hove as an example-looking at this map the most obvious areas to build are to the East,fill in all the gaps West of Saltdean and North to the Amex,leave room for a 3000 space car park,finish off with relieving the Falmer road with a new By Pass connecting Newhaven to the A27..

 

[janee]

We need to build millions of homes, there are not enough brownfield sites to fulfill the needs of the population, there will need to be new homes on what is currently undeveloped land. Alternatively we can watch house prices and rents continue to rise. Take your pick?

I agree. Except there is land available not on protected green belt. Developers buy it up and hoard for future profit gains.

The answer is to limit how long they hold it for and tax the gains more

 

[LamieRobertson]

Yes it could help,but having more jobs up North would be a start....

Nail on head

 

[wellquickwoody]

You are quite correct. Sometimes there is no ideal solution, only a 'least worst' option. For Sussex we either build more homes on greenfield sites (plus the infrastructure to support them which often gets overlooked) or we keep our housing stock pretty much as it is and allow the ever-increasing demand to push prices and rents up to a level where Sussex becomes almost an English version of Beverley Hills. As you've pointed out we have limited brownfield sites available, and even then there's a limit as to how many people you can cram onto Shoreham Harbour for example. (Infrastructure again).

Difficult choices ahead.

I think that a 'least worst' option is very often the best one available in politics. As told to me by a scouser which really fuxxing annoys me!

 

[Mental Lental]

We should encourage greater use of prophylactic preventatives.

That won't actually work. The problem with population decline when there are low birth rates is that you have too many old people with not enough young people working to pay for their pensions. Japan has a real big problem with this and it's one of the biggest headaches that the Diet has on it's plate. Ironically if you need people to work to pay for your old people, and you don't have enough workers being born there is one logical recourse.....Immigration.

So yes, we do need to build houses on large swathes of the ample downland that is available in the UK. Either to house the next generation of workers that are needed to sustain the ageing population, or for the immigrants that would be needed if the birth rate drops.

I'm not a big fan of this whole "we must protect our downland" nonsense anyway. There's already shit loads of it in the national parks, when you go from Brighton to London on the train about half the journey is through acres upon acres of green belt land. There's more than enough to build on and still have enough "countryside" to escape to for the weekend if you like a bit of fresh air in your lungs.

 

[Superphil]

I agree. Except there is land available not on protected green belt. Developers buy it up and hoard for future profit gains.

The answer is to limit how long they hold it for and tax the gains more

Where's that land then? It should be exposed to the public, see if people power can effect a change in this activity.

 

[beorhthelm]

everyone has gone off on an assumption this land would be sold for development. its rural famrland within the South Downs National Park, there is no chance its ever going to have any development on it.

 

[Gwylan]

That won't actually work. The problem with population decline when there are low birth rates is that you have too many old people with not enough young people working to pay for their pensions. Japan has a real big problem with this and it's one of the biggest headaches that the Diet has on it's plate. Ironically if you need people to work to pay for your old people, and you don't have enough workers being born there is one logical recourse.....Immigration.

The UK's birth rate has declined from 2.7 to 1.9 in under 50 years: to counteract the effect that Mental mentions, we need to encourage more kids not prevent them.

There are two main reasons for our increase in population: immigration (and as described above, this was needed) but mainly increased longevity: we're living much longer now. The UK is actually better off than many countries; Japan has a real problem but Germany and Italy are struggling too - many commentators think Merkel's desire to take more refugees wasn't entirely altruistic - and China is in a bit of a state following its one child policy,

Don't expect leaving the EU to reduce population much though, it will have little effect

 

[HastingsSeagull]

The problem is often the style of the new homes. Most countries I've traveled to/in or lived/worked in seem filled with 4 story, 8 apartment buildings that use the space eficently and don't create overcrowding. Every new area here seems the same faceless, tiny, detached red brick homes and massives swathes of road and pavement in loops and rings.

 

[knocky1]

everyone has gone off on an assumption this land would be sold for development. its rural famrland within the South Downs National Park, there is no chance its ever going to have any development on it.

A lot of people in Lewes believed that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35063474

 

[beorhthelm]

A lot of people in Lewes believed that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35063474

i assume you dont know where that is, otherwise you wouldnt make any comparison: its an area with warehouses and light industrial currently there. it aint farmland up on the downs.

 

[Diablo]

i assume you dont know where that is, otherwise you wouldnt make any comparison: its an area with warehouses and light industrial currently there. it aint farmland up on the downs.

Correct although very much on the flood plain....So would advise not to buy property there when built.

 

[pastafarian]

If you want 100`s of 1000`s coming here to live then fair enough, that is your wish. Dont moan though when the countryside is set upon by the bulldozer to build the extra housing, dont moan when agricultural land is lost and we have to rely more on higher priced produce from abroad.

 

[Stat Brother]

It wouldn't be so bad if every other house in the area/county/country was inhabited or habitable.

 

[ditchy]

It wouldn't be so bad if every other house in the area/county/country was inhabited or habitable.

We have also had a demographic change as a result of many more people who were married and live in say one house or appartment , are now divorced and live in two !

 

[Hastings gull]

If you want 100`s of 1000`s coming here to live then fair enough, that is your wish. Dont moan though when the countryside is set upon by the bulldozer to build the extra housing, dont moan when agricultural land is lost and we have to rely more on higher priced produce from abroad.

The whole thing about building new houses is a compromise, but then, human nature being as it is, this is hard to achieve as folk see that they might lose what to them is precious. Country folk understandably want to keep their local pub and post office open, but try to prevent extra building, when the inhabitants of those extra dwellings could provide the additional patronage to keep them open. Nimbyism is understandable to a point, and if we are honest, we are all that way inclined, albeit to varying degrees. I could see that village dwellers would be upset if new building were to be such that the current village atmosphere was dwarfed by a giant estate, but a couple of new roads in each village would surely go towards some sort of compromise. Sounds glib, but you know what I mean.

 

[Hastings gull]

We have also had a demographic change as a result of many more people who were married and live in say one house or appartment , are now divorced and live in two !

Absolutely, and this has not helped. Do not over a million children live in single parent households, so the logic here is that an extra million has had to be found.

 

[fat old seagull]

Scotland is mostly empty.

This is true, and I'm not being racist in anyway (I am at peace with my humanitarian views). Why don't the Goverment build new towns in Scotland, in view of the rapidly increasing population?