"FORTH Ports’ ambitious plans to re-industrialise Leith will cause a housing “crisis” in Scotland unless homes are developed on greenfield sites, experts are warning."
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Plea for greenfield housing land after waterfront masterplan abandoned"
(17 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"If Edinburgh wants to grow it now has to look beyond brownfield sites to do so.”
Elephant in the room alert!
How about instead of inexorably building on larger and larger tracts of countryside, we just have a housing "crisis" instead?
Obviously this won't happen, because people are too shortsighted to appreciate the need for a sustainable population, and our political class will never show us the leadership we need so badly.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Are there not a lot of properties unsold in Granton that the council/housing associations are letting out. And many more still unoccupied? How about on the Canal at the basin, still lots of empty flats there. A three-bedroomed family home two doors up from me has been let to a single man by the council, which whilst I appreciate he needs a home I think is a ridiculous waste. I know it is probably easier just to build properties and let them out en masse but there are a great many empty properties in Edinburgh already, requiring refurbishment and this is what they need to be doing, not building more. Oh yes, I forgot to mention they flattened a very large part of Niddrie/Craigmillar recently and also flats at Sighthill, what do they intend to do with that land?
Posted 12 years ago # -
There are still many 'brownfield' sites that can be used, with good transport links. No need to build on the greenbelt.
For example the site of the former tram depot off Leith Walk, the Abbeyhill butterfly, plenty of land still at Granton, etc. Isn't there still a big hole in the ground where the Gilded Balloon/369 gallery used to be on Cowgate?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Local councillor Cammy Day said widespread demolition in the area should have been postponed until residents could be rehomed in new developments. And he said officials would privately acknowledge their error."
Posted 12 years ago # -
Big hole in the ground at "Caltongait" (or whatever it was going to be called)
Posted 12 years ago # -
There's also the site of the former Eastern General hospital, which has presumably been zoned for housing. There are various barracks in the Edinburgh area being sold off soon too.
So really there is no need to build on green field sites. Unless you happen to own the land and want to make a packet, that is.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Did someone say "David Murray"?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Obviously not Edinburgh, but plenty of new residents are likely to work here. presume it will be built on mix of 'brown' and 'green' land.
Made possible by the reopening of the rail line/station.
The creation of Shawfair (in the Ed/MidL green belt) will presumably happen when the station (Borders Line) is built.
As crowriver says -
"So really there is no need to build on green field sites. Unless you happen to own the land and want to make a packet, that is."
Not really about lack of 'suitable'(?) land. Obviously it's easier/cheaper to build on 'new' land than land that has already been developed and may be contaminated.
Of course developers only make money if people want/are able to buy - which is a whole different matter. If it's 'social housing' ie rented, (or shared ownership), there are all sorts of other financial considerations.
Increasing population is a fact for the time being - as is a greater number of smaller households - ie more people living on their own (for various reasons).
There is unlikely to come a time when it will be illegal to own/live in a house of (say) more than 3 rooms per person (or any other number).
After the WWII there was a need for mass house building. Some was shoddy, some was based on architects/planners ideas of the way people should/wanted to live.
Some was more successful than others, some has been demolished - particularly in the council rented sector (UK wide).
The 'right to buy' changed things significantly. It fuelled aspiration. The better quality council houses were sold at a generous discount to sitting tenants.
This was also one cause of the house price boom, which has been fine for many home owners over recent years (as long as the could afford the mortgage) and less fine for others - not least because councils weren't allowed to keep all the money from selling off their stock and were therefore not able to build many new houses.
This has been particularly the case in Edinburgh where new 'social' housing has largely been by Housing Associations or arms length companies like PARC - which haven't always been as successful as hoped.
Of course a big factor is the price of land. A farmers' field is worth £X. A farmers' field with planning permission is worth £X x quite a lot.
So developers have for many years bought (or just optioned) land and sat on it and then tried to get planning permissions. This may take years and may involve many objections and redesigned schemes.
Objectors (whether 'merely' NIMBYs or with wider reasons for resisting developments) get tired and big companies tend to play a long game. They will also be in more direct contact with council officials and politicians and be able to influence and also sense changes in attitudes and policies. This is not (usually) corruption in the 'call in the police' sense, but whether it equals "democracy" is another question.
Councils looking for cash for things like new schools or cycle paths ('planning gain'/developer contributions) are less able to look at developments completely 'on their merit' - even if councils could be guaranteed to have good/sensible Development Plans based on a sound view of the future - NOT easy, even if 'everyone'c could agree on (for instance) the desirability of planning for the 'inevitable' car based future.
In simple terms the price of a new house is cost of land + cost of construction (materials/wages etc.) + developer costs (land banking, developing projects, marketing etc.) + profit.
In some cases the last part has been a negative number as developers/house builders have tried to keep their 'show on the road' until the good times come again. Many companies have gone must.
The value of land (and indeed anything built on it) is partly dependant on what someone will pay. But it is more dependant on what people/companies are willing to sell for.
If a company goes bust, the assets may be sold off. Any losses will be taken by the owners - shareholders. These may be 'real people' - the people who ran the company or worked for it. But you could be a part owner - through your pension fund or as a (notional) stakeholder in the (effectively) nationalised bank(s) that might have lent the company the money to buy the land and build on it.
All reasons that land prices seldom go down to levels where 'affordable' houses can be built. No doubt the 'worthless' land at the Waterfront (for instance) - where no-one wants to live or keep building (apparently) is on various balance sheets as a valuable asset.
SO much easier to buy a few fields or neglected woodland on the urban fringe - perhaps near an existing 'blight' - a noisy airport for instance - and promise jobs and prosperity and passengers for a tram line (for instance) and woo politicians with PowerPoint.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Bigger population -> more food demand (simplistic?)
Climate change -> more uncertainty about food supply and greater import cost
Isn't it better not to build on agricultural land?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Isn't it better not to build on agricultural land?"
That's just being sensible...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Isn't Scotland's population decreasing?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Posted 12 years ago #
-
Given that we import food, population in the wider world is more relevant.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Given that we import food, population in the wider world is more relevant."
In theory that's irrelevant.
If food production was rising faster than world population and its aspirations (more meat etc.)...
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Since the census of 2001, the Scottish Government and leading academics in Scotland have expressed concern over the falling number of births in Scotland and the ageing and decline of the population which has occurred over recent decades. Scotland's population reached its peak in the mid-1970s, and has slowly declined since that time to its current total of 5.1m. The major reason is seen to be emigration from Scotland - particularly to the rest of the United Kingdom - although recent years have seen that trend reversed with significant immigration to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom [1]. Similarly, since 2004 there has been a large influx of arrivals from the new EU accession states such as Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Latvia, contributing to the recent growth of the population.Posted 12 years ago # -
"
The net result will be, however, the release of chunks of greenbelt and farmland to meet that miasma and the few houses that we can finance being built there instead of in the city, with its existing schools, sewers, shops and other infrastructure and its general Edinburgh-ness."
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
