On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:28:41 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 30/08/2012 08:51, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:58:14 +0100, Graeme wrote:

On 30/08/2012 07:39, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:52, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 29/08/2012 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:27:26 on Wed, 29 Aug 2012, remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs arne, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old
docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard
in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to town centre
jobs.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. My comment was only meant to apply to
rural sites.


Some "brownfield" sites are rural. Old RAF airfields for instance I
believe count as brownfield for the purposes of legislation.

Soon fields just after ploughing will be included in the definition of "brownfield".

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

Is that UKIP policy then?

No, that appears to be the way the thinking of the Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dem parties is going.