215,000 / 13,046,000 = 1.6% of England we’re talking about here.
I’m big on environmentalism and regenerating England’s natural habitats, but trading a percent or so of total land area to ensure people have homes seems like a no brainer. Ideally we’d build higher density to avoid having to continue suburban sprawl, but any homes > perfect homes that are never built.
trading a percent or so of total land area to ensure people have homes
Ignoring the huge amount of brownfield area we have from closed factories etc.
Honestly if it was truly about a shortage of land. I’d be all for it. But it is not. It is about refusing to clean up and build on already developed land. In an attempt to increase profits.
And the country’s largest project to convert a brownfield site (Teesworks) to housing has sucked up hundreds of millions in public grants and investment, hoarded cash and extracted private profit for one man Lord Ben Houchen.
Possibly the biggest case of local government corruption and mismanagement in our time.
Let’s do the More or Less thing. Is that a big number?
I’m big on environmentalism and regenerating England’s natural habitats, but trading a percent or so of total land area to ensure people have homes seems like a no brainer. Ideally we’d build higher density to avoid having to continue suburban sprawl, but any homes > perfect homes that are never built.
Ignoring the huge amount of brownfield area we have from closed factories etc.
Honestly if it was truly about a shortage of land. I’d be all for it. But it is not. It is about refusing to clean up and build on already developed land. In an attempt to increase profits.
And the country’s largest project to convert a brownfield site (Teesworks) to housing has sucked up hundreds of millions in public grants and investment, hoarded cash and extracted private profit for one man Lord Ben Houchen.
Possibly the biggest case of local government corruption and mismanagement in our time.