Re: [OT] WAS : Affordable ... NOW: Housing policy

[Mal Lansell <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Harrison (Groups) wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 21:56 +0100, Mal Lansell wrote:
>
>
>>I'm firmly of the belief, (and heading rapidly off-topic) that the
>>solution to housing "problems" isn't to build ever
smaller rabbit
>>hutch
>>starter homes, but to flood the higher end of the market with
>>spacious
>>detached properties.
>>
>>
>
>Personally, I'd love to be doing these projects, and have spent about
10
>years arguing with the local planning office about two potential sites.
>On one of them, the plan we have put forward is EXACTLY what you
suggest
>- large, detached houses, with good sized gardens (about 1/2 an acre
>each.)
>
>

Well I wasn't even thinking of that big - even my 1/4 acre is more
garden than I can be bothered to weed!  You can get a pretty decent 5 or
6 bedroom house with a nice garden on 1/4 acre - a lot of those coming
onto the market and you'd soon see the pressure on the price of a semi
start to be relieved.

>The trouble is, in this part of the country (Sussex) at least, there is
>such a clamp-down in terms of planning policy on what land can be built
>on, coupled with a demand from Central Goverment that the county
>structure plan includes a huge number of additional homes by 2020, that
>the only way to meet both sets of legislation is to build what is
>euphemistically called "high-density housing".
>
>The only way to do as you suggest, and build housing round here, would
>be to remove the "green belt" restrictions, at which point
you can
>safely assume an outcry from a passionate but active minority who
>violently (this is not a metaphor - I was involved in the Newbury
bypass
>and Twyford Down roads projects!) oppose such a move, and a general
>grumbling from general population who want to see amenity spaces and
>views, rather than lots of housing estates.
>
>
>
Oh I know that's the policy, but I argue that they've got it all wrong.
All the plans and guidlines all come from central government targets, so
if they could be made to see the folly of building micro-huts the rest
would follow.  An impossible dream.

>The model you suggest has been done reasonably well in the Maidenbower
>development near Crawley - about 9,000 new homes, all houses rather
than
>flats, with a mix of 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- and 6-bed designs. This was built
>between 1990 and 2000. By comparison, since 2000, the only new
>development has been "executive apartments". Which is to say
tiny hutch
>flats, that are kicked out at prices as high as larger houses with
>gardens, on the basis that they have, gasp, granite worktops and
halogen
>lights :-)
>
>
>
I looked at a few houses in Maidenbower before I realised I could live
in Northants in a house twice the size and twice the distance from
London, but still get into the city quicker than I could from Crawley.

Although they were OK for modern box houses, the bedrooms were still
cramped, the gardens tiny and the streets were a maze of twisty
cul-de-sacs and red-tarmac shared drives.  I think houses need to look
out onto the street, not the side of another house - it tends to cut
crime if there aren't a load of hidden little alleys and side passages.

At the very least, I think there should be planning rules that insist on
minimum sizes for bedrooms and reception rooms - 7ft x 10ft is not a
double bedroom in my book!

>Glad you posted though - it reminds me I was meant to call the planning
>consultant yesterday to chase up a project :-)
>
>
>

Glad to be of assistance ;-)

>Regards,
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>