Halve estimate for new Gloucestershire homes - campaigners

“Matt1006 - that is the conundrum - succeeding Governments at all levels, local councils most of all pretend their solutions lay in forward planning, the population at large also pretend they can live in the English country idyll forever. Each group blames the other - government for not providing enough funds or allowing planning, or getting developers to develop the needed infrastructure, and socially mixed happy communities, living in garden housing estates. Everyone blames the NIMBYs for demonstrating against housing or industrial developments as the planning D-Day approaches.

Not too difficult to appreciate - Britain is a crowded island; land for housing, or industry is finite. In a free society, (Adam Smith's invisible hand) resources (material, and human) flood in where there is demand and there is an inexhaustible supply of both.

Adam Smith lived at a time when the earth seemed an empty space, with land, minerals, people, inexhaustible. The world has moved on, the tenets of economic, social, and political systems that evolved over those earlier times do not provide answers to the challenges of today - politicians at all levels continue to promise growth, Jam tomorrow - hence my earlier post - we need a radical re-think of what we expect from the system, tone down expectations.

Do we expect garden plots, do socially mixed communities exist anywhere? Do we have the time to sicialize at the village pub or the Church? Can the government, and local councils do much to generate employment, or get developers build houses for those that can not afford market rents? and why should they?

Society at large needs to stop expecting that their government or local council will deliver everything they want/need, time perhaps for the politicians also not to promise more than they can deliver - solving the housing demand/supply being just one part. Linking employment with housing - a non starter - housing demand is predicted based on the social housing list, and increase in population/family units at the present rate - needless to say, when the economy starts receding, people curtail their expectations and demand falls - people will just have to grin and bear, lower standards built up during a previous era. Planning regulations need to be flexible to allow the population at large to be able to find their solutions at a price they can afford. Government/local councils are not allowing that process to be free by promising much through their forward plans which raise expectations, and as seen by the comments on this site patently unrealistic, and/or undeliverable.

All of us are NIMBYs at heart. I am not being sarcastic - just being real.”

“Bonkim2003 - agreed, to a point. Single-occupany is on the increase, so there is an apparent demand for one- or two-bedroom units, in which case leasehold units in a block make more sense. BUT, we don't want high-rise blocks springing up (or are you being sarcastic?).

There is always criticism of generic Cheltenham flats buildings being proposed on re-development plots. Until now, these have been low-rise (often no more than 4 floors), so at least they don't end up dominating the sky-line. We definitely don't want high-rise blocks popping up.

As was noted in last week's TiG story about the 28,500 new homes by 2030-ish, where are the tens of thousands of workers actually going to work, when (if?) they move into the area? And where are they all living now? The vast majority of these homes will be sold on the open market, so they aren't going to be occupied by those on social housing waiting lists - which will be made worse if the suggested relaxation n "affordable housing" within new developments is brought in. So where are these possibly 40,000+ people living now, and what happens to their current homes when they buy one of these new homes?

This pre-occupation with needing to build hundreds of thousands of new homes nationwide seems wrong to me. Even more so when you consider the million-plus empty properties in England alone, many of which are ready for occupation now. Plus the 400,000 new homes covered by existing planning permissions but not yet started on site - force the developers to build what they already have permission for, before they are granted Planning Permission for more new homes, which also might not actually get built.

"Developers are champing at the bit to crack on with building" - are they? If so, why do they collectively have planning in place for 400k new homes which they aren't currently building???

The big supermarket chains have been accused in the past of land-grabbing and then taking years to build, and it seems the housing developers are doing much the same thing.”

“Give us a bit of your imagination then Bonkim2003 and tell us where you think these new high-rises should be and how they will work as mixed and balanced communities?....and isn't 'single unit family' an oxymoron?”

“Planners should plan more high-rise apartment blocks as much of the new demand is for single unit families who can't be bothered with maintaining gardens, etc. Some imagination and innovation needed to redefine housing.”