Editor's Opinion: Green sites more favourable
NEW homes in the more leafy suburbs of our towns and cities will always be attractive to buyers.
However, do such developments ease the problems our nation faces in some of our urban areas?
The answer is inevitably no – and at present there does not seem to be a long-term solution to the problem.
In North East Lincolnshire, we have pockets of land in our urban areas that are laying undeveloped – and have been that way for some considerable time.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Yes, we read this week how one such area is going to be opened up for housing development – but there are more, the old Birds Eye site on Ladysmith Road is a prime example.
However, rather than look at these, developers do seem to be favouring those green sites, out of town, that are mentioned above.
Humberston appears very popular at the moment with three or four plans now on the table, which will add up to hundreds of new homes if they are all given the go-ahead.
And there is no doubt that, if built, these homes will sell, and sell well.
And why not – if you look at the profile of Humberston against parts of inner Grimsby, you can see why a family would lean towards the former – cost taken into account.
But there is certainly scope for affordable homes in our towns – they are built and they do sell.
So how do we ensure that our brown field sites are made more attractive to those looking for new homes, both now and in the future?
What do you think about house building? Please add your views.
Comments
by Grimlander
Friday, September 07 2012, 1:58PM
“Wot's the point? They'll do as they like, and this place, already on its last legs, will die. Maybe 'good riddance'? Certainly, the verdict is "Own Fault"! How'd YOU like to live on green-field development miles from the centre of a town that's dead?
How are you going to sell the house you leave to live on the edge of Waltham, or on the outskirts of Scartho (as now proposed in another catchpenny development)? For-sale signs fall over through rot before people buy. Others are taken down after a couple of years of failing to sell.
Better get used to Bette Davis's comment in a pre-war film about a place like this (but not not caused by local misfeasance):
"WADDERDERMP!"”
by des22
Friday, September 07 2012, 11:37AM
“The idea is to get the market moving by encouraging the few who have money to buy new and create a secondary market as they sell the old property. Theoretically this should help the local economy by boosting the building trade. That will only work if people can get and can afford mortgages. In any case, creating this secondary market will reduce the demand for the sort of homes that might have been built on Birds Eye and the like so those sites will remain derelict. It's a false economy, the same sort of pyramid that we saw under Brown and which cannot be maintained. The only winners will be the developers on the greenfield sites.
Apart from all that, building out at Humberston is just urban sprawl and will turn the area into another dormitory village, leaving the main town area still with large areas of vacant land. Is that what we really want to see?”