Broad Lane Protest

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/78/opinion/73005/the-great-not-in-my-backyard-sweepstake-and-handicap-hurdles

Have you all read John Hardcastle's opinion piece on Rochdale Online?

I think that just about covers it. The only thing is, where DO you build?

On 'Brownfield sites' - you have enough of them already in the town. But then the developers wouldn't be able to get the rich prices in town now would they. Woodbine Street was a typical 'brownfield/grey site'. Was there anything wrong (other than parking) with infilling the old mill sites with housing?

I imagine many people would rather live in a nice new site, rather than an old brownfield site, that may not be surrounded by fields, but be in the middle of town, surrounded by buildings.
That will be one reason why the people living inthe newish development on Broad Lane chose to live there, when their houses were built on fields.

What you want and what you get are often at variance DL. I would suggest instead of looking to provide the reasonably well heeled with ambiant surroundings we first concentrate on putting roofs over the heads of everyone. When that has been accomplished we can move on towards 'serving' those better off (if they haven't served themselves to a green field site in the meantime). Time to do whats 'right' FIRST. The planning authorities should start insisting - one greenfield house for one brownfield house and get the 'town' back into reasonable shape.

We could even do both. Don't see why it has to be one or the other.

So what is the Green Belt about then if it is protected!

We cannot just keep developing on Green Belt. If is too small as it it is. So what goes next, The parks. rest of the school playing fields, National Parks like The Lake District, farm land to grow our food, Back and front gardens.

You know with the threat of the rest of our green and pleasant land I could not blame people if they took to breaking the law and clash with the authorities and developers over protecting our green belt protected areas.

They are just as important for our health and future. You cannot just keep building. Anyway have you ever taken a walk and see how many empty buildings there are and people who have second homes hardly being used.

The housing shortage could be eased somewhat if the empty buildings were brought up to standard and rented out

teamplayer2 wrote:So what is the Green Belt about then if it is protected!

We cannot just keep developing on Green Belt. If is too small as it it is. So what goes next, The parks. rest of the school playing fields, National Parks like The Lake District, farm land to grow our food, Back and front gardens.

.

We need to be very clear about this. The land ajacent to Broad Lane is NOT Green-Belt. It is what they call Protected Open Land which although, as the name suggests, it enjoys some protection in law this is very much limited. Again and again people talk about Green Belt in relation to Broad Lane. It isn't.

There is a lot of dispute over whether or not there is enough available Brown Field land available for current and future development. It costs more to develop and tends to be a less desirable environment in which to live.

I lived in the Broad Lane area when they build the first houses near the Spring Inn. At the time I was very much against it. Now that those houses have been there for about 20 years, the arguments against further development become less compelling.

I can see arguments on both sides

Lets also be realistic about this. Both the greenbelt encroachment issues and the shortage of housing are predominantly issues of the south east.

All could be solved at a stroke if major concerns could be persuaded to relocate up north. Mind you, the BBC tried and had only mixed success;

Allegedly heard from a senoir executive, 'I'm not moving THERE - it's primitive - people TALK to each other!'

Yes, people talking to you uninvited can be a real problem JB. In my case they are usually wearing a shell-suit, holding a can of Tennants Super-Strength and asking me for my loose change.

Still, less of Tinkerbell.

The real truth of the matter lies with the profit margins. There is already planning permission (in land-banks) for 400,000 houses in place as we write. Why are they not being built? Because you cannot afford to buy them. Either you haven't the deposit required or the wage structure to make the payments - because they are too expensive for the present day pocket. Why? Because there is a dearth of available/suitable properties on the market at affordable prices with the rest available out of your reach - because WE HAVE'NT ENOUGH AVAILABLE HOUSE TO GO AROUND IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why? Because a shortage keeps the prices UP and the PROFITS GOOD.
So which developer in his right mind is going to go against the trend or build house with low profit margins when all he has to do is wait for the upturn and he's quids in. If he is going to build at all it will be on the most suitable land (Green field) and at prices whereby he can make a killing. That's business.
As the British economy is 'property' based i.e. values - low values are not good for the figures so it is therefore not in a governments interests to flood the market and at the same time reduce the capital currency of the economy. Get it ?????

So who is ever going to be brave enough to say to hell with all that and take the plunge? Not your present day politicians of ANY colour let me tell you.