On 31/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:34:39 +0100, "News" wrote:

Optimist wrote:

"Oh look! We've got all those brownfield sites! Let's build over
the rest of XXXshire!"

Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be
built
on. Many think all new developments can be on brownfield sites
despite only
14% of demand being catered for on current brownfield sites. This
should be
resisted as we now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these
sites
vacant, cleaned up and made natural again by turning them into parks,
woods
and encouraging wildlife for the local population to enjoy.

This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the
quality of life of urban dwellers. Righting the wrongs of the
incompetent
planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath could be actively
encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The
deliberate differentiation between town and country requires
abolition as
the Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words
town and
country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate
societies. It creates distrust.

One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use
brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that
has been used for industry.

Also setting up electricity and water supply and sewers.


They'd have to do that for a greenfield site.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail