# Britain - Reform to Prevent Cities from Turning into Grey Deserts



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Copyright 2006 The Press Association Limited
February 27, 2006
*Cities Becoming Grey Deserts, Warns Think-Tank *
Andrew Woodcock, PA Chief Political Correspondent

Radical reform of the planning system is needed to save Britain's cities from becoming "grey deserts'' and deliver the kind of family homes with gardens that most people want to live in, according to a report released today.

The report by the Policy Exchange think-tank warns that current planning laws encourage the development of high-density, high-rise housing in cities, while allowing parks, gardens and urban open spaces to be built over in the name of protecting the countryside.

One consequence, according to a poll carried out for the think-tank, is that 75% of people believe that, despite rising incomes, a family home with a garden is now less affordable than it was 20 years ago.

Today's report, entitled Better Homes, Greener Cities, argues that evidence from the housing market proves that, given the choice, most families would prefer to live in spacious and green "suburban'' surroundings.

But the planning laws discourage building on "greenfield'' sites in the countryside, while concentrating ever more development on the towns and cities which house 80% of Britain's population despite making up only 10% of the area of the country.

"Development takes place on the kinds of green spaces people actually use and value - allotments, playing fields, parks and gardens - in order to save agricultural land,'' said the report.

"British towns and cities are becoming grey deserts, with serious implications for the health and well-being of the 50 million Britons who live in urban and suburban areas.''

The report proposed a new Social Cost Tariff of up to £500,000 a hectare to compensate local communities for the added burdens of developments and give local authorities an incentive to promote house-building. The new tariff - worth about £3.5 billion a year across the country - would replace current development taxes and would be retained by local councils.

Local authorities should retain business rate, council tax and a proportion of income tax receipts from new developments, so they are encouraged to attract new inhabitants to their areas, said the report.

While Government should continue to set minimum levels for housing development, local communities should be given a much greater say over how many homes are built and where they are located.

Area plans should be made more flexible, allowing easier changes in the designated use of particular districts, and there should be a presumption in favour of development unless local authorities can show it is undesirable.

And there should be a total moratorium on the development of gardens, playing fields, parks, allotments and other green spaces within towns and cities.

Policy Exchange director Nicholas Boles said: "The Government's policy of cramming people into multi-storey blocks in crowded cities means that a family home with a garden is becoming a luxury few can afford.

"We need to build more houses but this must be done in a way that respects the needs of the environment.

"Our proposals will compensate communities for the cost of development and encourage more house-building, so that more and more people will be able to afford the family homes to which they aspire.''

Today's poll found that 76% of respondents feel planning decisions are best taken by local, rather than central, government.

Some 57% did not agree that developing on green spaces was a price worth paying for more affordable homes, but the proportion was lower among 18-24 year olds (49%) and semi-skilled or unskilled respondents (52%), who typically do not own their own home.

Building on urban green spaces was the most unpopular type of development, opposed by 38% of those questioned, followed by developments in open countryside (30%) and on green space at the edge of towns (27%).

The Local Government Association said there were "serious problems'' with some of Policy Exchange's recommendations, which appeared to promote business interests at the expense of the views of local people.

David Sparks, the chairman of the LGA's environment board, said: "There does need to be reform of how new developments benefit the whole community. There is a need for more sources of local funding to be available in a more timely way in order to fund desperately-needed infrastructure that must accompany any new development, whether it is schools, roads, sewerage or health facilities.''


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Urban living with people in tower blocks can work if they're done well such as the proposed Skyhouse which featured several floors of "garden space" and offered affordability.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but don't most people in HK and Singapore live in tall buildings but they work well because they have alot of green space at the bottom. In this way we can get density and a clean environment.


----------



## Robert Stark (Dec 8, 2005)

Lack of single family homes, I think is one of the top reasons European countries have such low birthrates, because they limit construction of new homes in the country, and many people are limited to small urban apartments. The welfare state also incourages people not to have kids because they are gurenteed government subsidies when they retire, and high taxes makes children to expensive.
"Liberalism is the cancer of western civilization"
-Pat Buchanan


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Does my banana palm on my balcony help?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Robert Stark said:


> Lack of single family homes, I think is one of the top reasons European countries have such low birthrates, because they limit construction of new homes in the country, and many people are limited to small urban apartments. The welfare state also incourages people not to have kids because they are gurenteed government subsidies when they retire, and high taxes makes children to expensive.
> "Liberalism is the cancer of western civilization"
> -Pat Buchanan


Are you ever going to stop with this "death of the west" bullcrap?

:bash:


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

Robert Stark said:


> Lack of single family homes, I think is one of the top reasons European countries have such low birthrates, because they limit construction of new homes in the country, and many people are limited to small urban apartments. The welfare state also incourages people not to have kids because they are gurenteed government subsidies when they retire, and high taxes makes children to expensive.
> "Liberalism is the cancer of western civilization"
> -Pat Buchanan


Germany, known for its welfare state
- encourages construction of suburban homes
- pays 154 Euros per child per month
- gives further subsidies for parents
- offers education free of charge for every child
- offers free medical healthcare

All these points should make it easier to raise children and in fact there are people who get many children, BECAUSE then they get the most out of the welfare state (moneywise). Unfortunately they are in most cases not the brightest people (just bright enough to know how to exploit the welfare state).
Conclusion: Your equation welfare state = low birthrate with the above mentioned arguments is bullshit.
There are other reasons for the low birthrate. The main reason is probably that children are often seen as obstacles in one's career.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Robert Stark said:


> Lack of single family homes, I think is one of the top reasons European countries have such low birthrates, because they limit construction of new homes in the country, and many people are limited to small urban apartments. The welfare state also incourages people not to have kids because they are gurenteed government subsidies when they retire, and high taxes makes children to expensive.
> "Liberalism is the cancer of western civilization"
> -Pat Buchanan


:crazy:

Which is why the most urban part of the US, the NorthEast, is BY FAR the wealthiest?

:crazy:

Less Buchanan makes you more intelligent. His shit is not worth the :toilet: it is written on.

uke:


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

DiggerD21 said:


> Germany, known for its welfare state
> - encourages construction of suburban homes
> - pays 154 Euros per child per month
> - gives further subsidies for parents
> ...


That's because people on the welfare state often live in huge modern mansions. Without having to spend a cent, of course.


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

England is is one of the densest countries is the world, of course a detatched family house is going to be exspensive, and it should be, it's a luxury. I agree that they should stop people building on playing fields and parks, but they shouldn't be encouraging developers to build sprawling suburban developments, they should instead be encouraging dense housing developments (Terrace housing and low rise, family friendly apartments) with plenty of green space surrounding it (Instead of a sea of car parking)


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

england cities are like parks anyway, theires not much density in london. i think english cities can pack more people with high condo towers, rehabilitation of industrial terrains.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Greenbelt land targeted in UK housebuilding push *

LONDON, Nov 22 (Reuters) - British housebuilders will need to build on protected greenbelt land around London and other major cities to meet targets of 240,000 new homes a year by 2016, a key British government advisor said on Thursday. 

The Callcutt Review, an independent study commissioned by the government, said ambitions to boost Britain's depleted housing stock by up to 2 million dwellings in the next eight years were achievable but some greenfield development was necessary as the UK's population swells. 

"Much more former commercial or industrial land should be used and whilst new settlements and greenfield sites will have to make a contribution, the proportion of greenfield development should be minimised," John Callcutt, head of the review, said in a statement. 

A shortage of housing has helped to treble house prices in the last ten years. According to the Land Registry, the average cost of a home in England and Wales is now 230,474 pounds ($475,400), pricing out many first-time buyers. 

Housebuilders have delivered an average 166,000 new homes a year since 2000, according to the National House Building Council but the review said they would need to increase their output by a more than a third to meet targets, raising prospects of a construction boom. 

The report said regenerating derelict city space was a priority but bowed to the controversial idea of new housing in protected countryside areas. 

"Unless we continue to regenerate our towns and cities, they will decline and in turn force more development to the edge of town and out into our countryside," Callcutt said. 

The proposals could lead to a trickle of development on protected land in and around heavily populated areas, including protected countryside surrounding London, which has enabled the UK capital to avoid the urban sprawl seen in some global cities. 

TEAMWORK 

The Callcutt review, commissioned in December by Ruth Kelly, the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said developers and local authorities should share responsibility for meeting the targets by freeing up redundant inner city sites and improving the regulatory framework. 

"The industry is in shape to deliver the homes we need for future generations but we must create the market conditions to attract investment on the scale required," Callcutt said. 

The review also said national demand for new homes should not come at the expense of other government targets to increase sustainability of residential communities by building low-carbon, energy efficient properties. 

The British Property Federation, a key industry body, said it welcomed the review's findings. 

"By looking to develop strategic and long-term partnerships between councils and developers, we can guarantee the regeneration of our deprived areas, by offering private firms the carrot of more profitable work in others," it said. (Editing by David Holmes/Elaine Hardcastle)


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

I reckon more money should be spent trying to improve the aesthetic of inner cities. It'll make high density living more fashionable and make it work far better than has do so in the past. All the studies show that a nice environment can have a huge impact on people's behavior, and it stand to reason that if people only see ugly things when growing up they're going to have a pretty cynical view of society. 
Building on allocated green belt land may be necessary, but all options to develop brown field sites should be tried first. The city environment should improved rather than degrading countryside around it. 
And i don't get why people were talking about the welfare state earlier. The whole idea is to provide a safeguard for the most vulnerable in society, like children. Helping people raise kids is one of the major reasons for the post war baby boom. Starving social services of money is what creates disaffected generations. Children shouldn't be punished for what their parents do.Anyway as it stands, way more benefits go unclaimed, in Britain at least, than those that are. Modern society simply expects more out of life than immediately having to raise children, it's a perfectly natural, and necessary evolution of society. What's important is guaranteeing quality of life for people, not just trying to make them have more children.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

If destroying green-belt land is an issue, you don't have to. Build upward on existing land.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

To be honest, I think the current greenbelt of London is far to close to the city center. It has forced much greater sprawl out past the greenbelt creating longer commutes (which in turn increases pollution) and increases property prices within the greenbelt as it is more desirable.

The current greenbelt should be moved further back out, allowing London to grow a bit outwards. Not too far, maybe to towns like Slough/Maidenhead etc. 

At the same time, there are plenty of brownfield sites that should be developed in London. These will provide the higher density living closer to the center that many are after with the further greenbelt providing suburban homes for those who require that.

Further, area's around train stations should be zoned for higher density development (mixed income modern highrise apartments) and retail. What better place to locate such apartments than above or next to public transport options.

As for the greenbelts. I think too many people seem to think that these being so close to the city are more important than they really are. If plenty of parks are created, the open green spaces people need are more readily available than the farms of the greenbelt. 

I ask urban people this. When was the last time you visited a park, compared to the last time you walked through a farm in London's near greenbelt?


----------



## Roberto-i (Jan 13, 2007)

I think you no longer can afford low-density planning when your country is overpopulated , period.
Moreover supply and demand's law says it all , it'll be cheaper and cheaper living in condos than in detatched house , get used to it.


----------



## DUMB0 (Oct 5, 2007)

Rocky - "england cities are like parks anyway, theires not much density in london."

???

Apart from Hyde park/ Kensington gardens, London isn't that green. London is actually very dense by European standards:

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html



Roberto-i & Skopie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Even though major British cities are dense (see above link) by European standards. The UK isn't THAT dense ! it's comparable to Germany. England by itself has a density similar to the Netherlands in other words quite dense. I wonder how the Germans/Dutch live... in apartments ... in houses? These are the kind of questions we should ask ourselves before making such alarmist claims.

[Are you environmentalists ? Is there anyone (apart maybe from Mp Redwood and ABD members) in Britain who isn't ?]

IMHO the report is accurate; British cities could look better and London in particular is down right UGLY (yes I said it UGLY).
It's not as if London pretends to be better looking than Paris.
For the record, the most attractive city in the UK is Milton Keynes (IMO). 


On a more serious tone, yes, British cities CAN still pack in more people as they not top of the table in pop. density (Bombay does) but do we WANT to?
If the Germans/Dutch manage to live mainly in houses then so can the British. 

Singapore as a city (planning, transport) has a lot to teach to british cites
For example, I noticed Singapore is more dense than London yet Singapore is Greener than London. The fundamental difference is that they build large residential high-rises on their plots of land instead of fitting as many terraced/semi-detached houses a possible. Not only does greenery occupy overall more space, it also not fragmented (i.e 1 park instead of 100 small gardens) and therefore has a more positive impact on the neighborhood. But then again, London is the product of peoples priorities and tastes )
Individual wishes (e.g. having a private garden) have priority over community aesthetics. I guess that's the British mentality.

As a counter argument, large infrastructure projects as well as any governmental project seem to almost alway go very wrong.. Hamlet towers.... the Millennium Dome..... Wembly stadium.... Eurostar (11 years late is VERY VERY wrong) and coming soon the OLYMPICS 2012 (gr8 logo btw lol). To think London houses so many financial geniuses and yet can't get something built either on time OR on budget. Smart banker, Dumb official/contractor ?

There IS a solution. I'm just not sure Britain is WILLING or ABLE to execute it.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

DUMB0 said:


> For the record, the most attractive city in the UK is Milton Keynes (IMO).


:crazy: :lol:

Probably more Germans than Brits live in apartments and in the mediterranean countries it's even more, British cities are certainly not dense compared to say Barcelona, Athens or Rome.

I don't think that Britain will ever be a nation of apartment dwellers like Singapore, it just isn't the national character, but we do need to adopt parts of that model if we don't want towns to sprawl onto the greenbelt and merge into each other as the population increases.

There are some new developments that are relatively dense where dwellings situated on top of each other but where allowance is made for some private outdoor green space, this will become more common in future I think.


----------



## DUMB0 (Oct 5, 2007)

WTF is wrong with Milton Keynes? :weird:

Your pic does not impress me. 
Those places are like house showrooms: 1 in a 1000000. Availability near 0 and probably nowhere near a major cities.

Are those little patches of grass supposed to make Britain's cities greener?? :lol: 

Where's the privacy?
Where's are the garages? Don't tell me: it's car free :wallbash:
Why all those colors on the roof? hno:
What's up with those bridges connecting the apartments?

I wouldn't want to live in a place like this.

Try this...










not the best but still is a better use of space and better looking than your CR*P


----------



## DUMB0 (Oct 5, 2007)

"British cities are certainly not dense compared to say Barcelona, Athens or Rome"

WRONG ! only Athens (a pretty ugly place btw)

About Jonesy55's pic
Why didn't they stack up those low-rise apartments into one bloc and then make a large (even public) park.
You could even provide some underground parking in a large bloc of apartments like in my picture.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

:? Why such a hostile attitude??

That development is near a major city, in fact it's very near to London!!

If you like MK then fine, each to their own, but personally I find it extremely dull with identikit lego housing, I don't really like any of the new towns actually, i'd much rather live somewhere denser and more walkable with a bit more character.

I don't see any garages in your picture either but never mind, if you live in a big city you don't need a car as much, especially if it is dense enough that public transport is effective.

Not everybody is obsessed with privacy, some people like to be able to see their neighbours walking past to say hello to while they sit on the balcony eating breakfast, what is wrong with that? Are you saying that we should all aspire to live in a mock-tudor suburban cul-de-sac with huge conifer hedges to stop people seeing our BBQs? :laugh:

As for your comment that British cities are dense by European standards, you are living on another planet, have you ever been to Barcelona or Marseille for example and compared them to Leeds or Birmingham??

That City Mayors list you posted is crap, for example it is counting the whole of Ile de France as the 'area' for Paris, this is like counting Suffolk as part of London, of course this makes the city appear less dense but it doesn't reflect reality!!! Likewise for Barcelona or Rome, it all depends on how you define the city area. If you visit you will see that Barcelona for example it is not made up of rows of semi-detached housing like most British Cities, the housing is clearly denser.

DUMBO appears to be an accurate name, sorry if you disagree with me but there really is no need to be such a prick :laugh:


----------

