Would YOU turn down 275 million to 'save' your village?

[Timmy40]

Pheo said:

and everyone local with their nice big houses is simply pulling up the ladder on everyone left.

It's the planning policies I'm afraid. Estates are zoned for towns and larger villages, but thanks to the CPRE's very effective campaigning last century most LAs have a blanket ban on new houses in the countryside. The effect has been to slowly strangle the life out of the countryside which is now a museum staffed by a rapidly ageing cohort of farmers running ever larger farms as the small ones are broken up when the elderly farmers die ( there kids having long since moved to cities or towns because they couldn't afford to live locally ).

[PugwasHDJ80]

Timmy40 said:

Pheo said:

and everyone local with their nice big houses is simply pulling up the ladder on everyone left.

It's the planning policies I'm afraid. Estates are zoned for towns and larger villages, but thanks to the CPRE's very effective campaigning last century most LAs have a blanket ban on new houses in the countryside. The effect has been to slowly strangle the life out of the countryside which is now a museum staffed by a rapidly ageing cohort of farmers running ever larger farms as the small ones are broken up when the elderly farmers die ( there kids having long since moved to cities or towns because they couldn't afford to live locally ).

this all over

I live deep in the Hampshire countryside- it is unfortunately mostly dead. The fields are free of animals and insects, the locals are all of an "age", or renting. Theere is a LOT of land that would suit homeowners, and landowners who would be happy to sell. Where I live used to be a village up until the 19th Century when famine emptied it- the houses were enventually knocked down. We still have a church, a "ex" village hall and an ex "pub", but no houses!

The LA won't support the idea of putting houses back on the terraces that still exist, and where houses once thrived. there is every reason to build houses there.

[anonymous-user]

rover 623gsi said:

The great rural fightback:

meanwhile, the young people who grow up in rural areas have to move away because there are no jobs, or houses for them, the community falls apart, schools close, shops close, pubs close, and the only people left behind are rich pensioners living in dying villages

With the exception of the pub still being open that precisely describes my mum and dads village in Leicestershire.

[Oakey]

LAMBS?

Really?

I think Countryside Untouched, No Townie Scumbags would be more appropriate

Edited by Oakey on Tuesday 26th May 21:30

[Agrispeed]

fblm said:

rover 623gsi said:

The great rural fightback:

meanwhile, the young people who grow up in rural areas have to move away because there are no jobs, or houses for them, the community falls apart, schools close, shops close, pubs close, and the only people left behind are rich pensioners living in dying villages

With the exception of the pub still being open that precisely describes my mum and dads village in Leicestershire.

Down in Cornwall, the real issue is not that there are too few houses, but the fact that there is upto 40% of them are second homes. It's actually noticeable how much the population grows during half term and summer holidays - I can tell when holiday season starts when you get people swearing at you for daring to drive a tractor on the road- . It gets to the point where it's locals against second home owners, who don't integrate or understand the area; moaning about tractors on the roads during silaging and driving through cattle being moved etc.

Many farms are sold off and bought by people from towns who want a few acres for their horse etc.


Anyway the offer isn't going to go away for the farmer anyway. And moving to a new farm isn't the same as farming where you have for generations and you know every hedge and tree on the farm.

[ruggedscotty]

1st rule of property

refuse the first offer

2nd rule

make em believe you are serious get on the PR waggon and make em think you are not interested....

3rd rule

make em sweat

4th rule

grab the best offer and run - pffft never need to work again and live a life of recreation - no early starts to milk the cows or out harvesting the crops in the rain etc....

he will sell - just not got the right offer as of yet

[Agrispeed]

ruggedscotty said:

1st rule of property



grab the best offer and run - pffft never need to work again and live a life of recreation - no early starts to milk the cows or out harvesting the crops in the rain etc....

he will sell - just not got the right offer as of yet

But what if you want to work and milk cows and harvest crops?

Most Farmers aren't in it for the loss money.

What would you do if you didn't have to work, there wouldn't be much sense of achievement or worth would there?

[elster]

Why doesn't he take the money.

Then with the money fight the objection to the planning application that already the Government have already said isn't viable. Then he can buy it back at cost price.

The reality is this development is unlikely to be the one that is actually they want to buy. Also the offers will be on the basis of getting planning, which it doesn't look likely it will.

Without knowing the local development plan it is hard to know the full situation. More of ten than not a lot of these offers are just like playing poker. They actually want to build 2,000 the other side of the county.

[joema]

elster said:

Why doesn't he take the money.

Then with the money fight the objection to the planning application that already the Government have already said isn't viable. Then he can buy it back at cost price.

The reality is this development is unlikely to be the one that is actually they want to buy. Also the offers will be on the basis of getting planning, which it doesn't look likely it will.

Without knowing the local development plan it is hard to know the full situation. More of ten than not a lot of these offers are just like playing poker. They actually want to build 2,000 the other side of the county.

This.

It's not like a lottery win. He will only see money once planning has been given which sounds unlikely so all he is doing would make him very hated for a very uncertain reward...

But I would be accepting an offer!

[popeyewhite]

He won't sell. His family have farmed in the area for aeons and it's a beautiful part of England. Wish there were more people like him instead of the many greedy take-the-money-and-run live-for-today rats who do sell. When the entire south of England is concreted over in 200 years and people bleat about no green spaces they'll only be getting what they deserve.

[boxst]

Very close to me, I'm happy he has currently refused. There is extra pressure on housing here as there is a protection zone around Ashdown forest stopping all development.

[z4RRSchris]

no way he was offered £275m.

[rover 623gsi]

popeyewhite said:

He won't sell. His family have farmed in the area for aeons and it's a beautiful part of England. Wish there were more people like him instead of the many greedy take-the-money-and-run live-for-today rats who do sell. When the entire south of England is concreted over in 200 years and people bleat about no green spaces they'll only be getting what they deserve.

the UK housing stock is increasing by 0.4% per year so at the current rate it will take 250 years to double the number of homes - this will mean that the amount of land covered by housing will increase from 2% in 2015 to 4% in 2265. So, I wouldn't get too worried about the south of England (or indeed any part of England) getting concreted over. More of the country is covered in golf courses than it is housing.

[popeyewhite]

rover 623gsi said:

popeyewhite said:

He won't sell. His family have farmed in the area for aeons and it's a beautiful part of England. Wish there were more people like him instead of the many greedy take-the-money-and-run live-for-today rats who do sell. When the entire south of England is concreted over in 200 years and people bleat about no green spaces they'll only be getting what they deserve.

the UK housing stock is increasing by 0.4% per year so at the current rate it will take 250 years to double the number of homes - this will mean that the amount of land covered by housing will increase from 2% in 2015 to 4% in 2265. So, I wouldn't get too worried about the south of England (or indeed any part of England) getting concreted over. More of the country is covered in golf courses than it is housing.

I stopped reading past 'at the current rate'... .

[anonymous-user]

popeyewhite said:

rover 623gsi said:

popeyewhite said:

He won't sell. His family have farmed in the area for aeons and it's a beautiful part of England. Wish there were more people like him instead of the many greedy take-the-money-and-run live-for-today rats who do sell. When the entire south of England is concreted over in 200 years and people bleat about no green spaces they'll only be getting what they deserve.

the UK housing stock is increasing by 0.4% per year so at the current rate it will take 250 years to double the number of homes - this will mean that the amount of land covered by housing will increase from 2% in 2015 to 4% in 2265. So, I wouldn't get too worried about the south of England (or indeed any part of England) getting concreted over. More of the country is covered in golf courses than it is housing.

I stopped reading past 'at the current rate'... .

Which is a shame because unlike the drivel you posted it was actually worth reading.

[rover 623gsi]

also worth noting that the 'current rate' is less than it used to be - housebuilding numbers are going down, not up

[popeyewhite]

fblm said:

Which is a shame because unlike the drivel you posted it was actually worth reading.

Ooh look someone I'll never meet is being rude on the internet.

[Timmy40]

popeyewhite said:

fblm said:

Which is a shame because unlike the drivel you posted it was actually worth reading.

Ooh look someone I'll never meet is being rude on the internet.

To be fair though you were posting utter drivel.

[popeyewhite]

rover 623gsi said:

also worth noting that the 'current rate' is less than it used to be - housebuilding numbers are going down, not up

Any discussion that involves extrapolating current figures to 250 years in the future is pointless. Whether figures are higher or lower. To go on to base a line of argument on those figures is naive. I could have argued that as the population of the UK is expanding as never before and is likely to carry on doing so then any figure based on current housing trends will be laughably inaccurate within 20 years. In the last decade Britain's population has been growing twice as fast as Europe and somewhere will have to be found to house these people.

[rover 623gsi]

you're the one who started extraploating figures to suggest what was going to happen in the future

When the entire south of England is concreted over in 200 years and people bleat about no green spaces they'll only be getting what they deserve.

as for somewhere will have to be found to house these people - it won't happen because we, literally, cannot build houses quick enough. The planning system is long winded. There is not enough money floating around. There are not enough skilled workers. There is not even enough scaffolding (literally) to keep up with current demand. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that housebuilding numbers are going to escalate in the next 20 or 30 years. It is a myth that Britain's countryside is being concreted over.