Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 07:39:50 on Fri, 31
Aug 2012, Martin Edwards remarked:
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.

You have to do that on greenfield sites too.


It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually
considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much
lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and
cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is
a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders
already own compared with brown field sites which they don't.

Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of
brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance
and remediation which, by definition, contains many unknowns and
risks, then sell the site at cost to developers. This has worked
spectacularly well in such places London, Liverpool and Glasgow
docklands, the former Royal Dockyard at Chatham and the area around
the Black Country Spine Road in the West Midlands.

Martin Edwards wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Just so, and even places like Bushey which are in Herts but in the Met
Police area.

Wasn't the MPA realigned to the Greater London boundary in 2000? Epsom was
certainly transferred to Surrey Police around then.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

Peter Campbell Smith wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Maybe. There is a campaign in Epsom to get Epsom Station included in Zone
6 - as Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner already are - and amongst the
older
generation there is a certain envy of the benefits of Freedom Passes. If
inclusion in London were the solution, I think there would be significant
support.

However there could also be fierce opposition. I don't have the council tax
rates for Epsom & Ewell and neighbouring boroughs to hand but ISTR past
discussion on this group suggesting that further down the road those
settlements that stayed in (what is now) Tandridge, Surrey pay more tax than
neighbours absorbed into Croydon, London.

It would of course increase the Con/Lab ratio in London, which might
displease those of the Boris-free party.

That's not a given by any means. Epsom and Ewell is a very unusual case in
local government as it's dominated by a Residents' Association who've been
running things since at least the 1930s. Local government voting patterns
bear limited relation to national ones and whilst some of the RA may be
ideologically small-c conservatives there's no love lost whatsoever between
them and the local Conservatives. The RA also hold nearly all the Epsom &
Ewell seats on Surrey County Council. If the borough were added and the RA
were to contest the GLA elections, as their Havering counterparts do, it
would not bring many Conservative votes to the cause.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

Graeme Wall wrote in
:

On 31/08/2012 12:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
Is the Borough of Epsom and Ewell the only non-London council area
wholly within the M25? Hard to find a map that would show that.

Ashford (no, the other one) looks like a contender.

Thanks for the map info. Ashford, aka Spelthorne, seems to have a
reservoir outside the M25 and Elmbridge has a few bits including the new
Downside M25 service area. So far as I can see nothing other than Epsom
and Ewell of district or unitary authority status is wholly inside.

Peter

--
|| Peter CS ~ Epsom ~ UK | pjcs02 [at] gmail.com |

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in
:

Peter Campbell Smith wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people
generally recognised as London. It is now well inside what people
generally recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed
into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up
area within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Maybe. There is a campaign in Epsom to get Epsom Station included in
Zone 6 - as Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner already are - and
amongst the older
generation there is a certain envy of the benefits of Freedom Passes.
If inclusion in London were the solution, I think there would be
significant support.

However there could also be fierce opposition. I don't have the
council tax rates for Epsom & Ewell and neighbouring boroughs to hand
but ISTR past discussion on this group suggesting that further down
the road those settlements that stayed in (what is now) Tandridge,
Surrey pay more tax than neighbours absorbed into Croydon, London.

It would of course increase the Con/Lab ratio in London, which might
displease those of the Boris-free party.

That's not a given by any means. Epsom and Ewell is a very unusual
case in local government as it's dominated by a Residents' Association
who've been running things since at least the 1930s. Local government
voting patterns bear limited relation to national ones and whilst some
of the RA may be ideologically small-c conservatives there's no love
lost whatsoever between them and the local Conservatives. The RA also
hold nearly all the Epsom & Ewell seats on Surrey County Council. If
the borough were added and the RA were to contest the GLA elections,
as their Havering counterparts do, it would not bring many
Conservative votes to the cause.

Well ... at the last parliamentary election the Tories got 56%, the Lib
Dems 26% and Labour 12%. I don't think that will give much succour to
Ken's successor. Granted the RA might get a few seats in the GLA.

Council tax in E&E is higher than in neighbouring Sutton*, yet Sutton
has far superior schools, bus services and social services (some of
which are of course county functions in Surrey but not in London).
Granted, Kingston is more expensive.

Peter

* band D for the current year: E&E £1520, Sutton £1447, Kingston £1683
(including police, county, GLA etc).

--
|| Peter CS ~ Epsom ~ UK | pjcs02 [at] gmail.com |

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually
considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much
lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and
cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is
a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders
already own compared with brown field sites which they don't.

Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of
brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance
and remediation

The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The landowners
soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:55:14 +0100
"News" wrote:
I fallow field has people on it? Boy you are slow.

If people own the land

snip total senile drivel

Read: "Oh dear,

snip total senile drivel

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:11:08 +0100
"News" wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100
Optimist wrote:
Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask
themselves where the food is to come from. We cannot

I think in the minds of these people it comes from some magic food
machine run by pixies

So senile. Sad

When

So senile. Sad

On 31/08/2012 09:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:39:50 on Fri, 31
Aug 2012, Martin Edwards remarked:
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.

You have to do that on greenfield sites too.

True, but starting from scratch is probably easier.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 22:05, News wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

It's a lot easier to build on a green field site and usually
considerably cheaper. Add the lower construction costs to the much
lower cost of buying agricultural land on the outskirts of towns and
cities compared with land values in and near town centres and there is
a clear incentive to develop green field sites which the housebuilders
already own compared with brown field sites which they don't.

Experience shows that by far the best way to facilitate development of
brown field sites is for the public sector to pay for site clearance
and remediation

The best way is to slap land valuation taxation on all land. The
landowners soon get it profitable. And no public expense to do so.

But will the tax on my garden be higher than my present council tax?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman