Council says it welcomes Chancellor’s push for brown site homes

Presumably Micheal Jones will also welcome the statement made by the new Business Secretary:
"Mr Javid told the BBC the 141,000 new homes built last year were a fraction of those needed to meet demand.
"Local people will still have control over planning," he said.
"The point of this is to make sure we build more homes, that local people are still rightly involved in those decisions and we find ways to speed it up."
There was "no need" to build on green belt land, he insisted, to meet the government's targets."

It has been the devil's own job to get CEC, including Cllr Jones & chief planner Adrian Fisher, to accept brownfield developments in Wilmslow & elsewhere. Their argument has been "Developers don't like brownfields due to the high costs involved, therefore green (belt & fields) will always be preferred". CEC is now attempting to distance itself from its previous hand in glove policy with developers. Rich, is it not?
What is constantly being overlooked by government & CEC (and other authorities) are the vast numbers of green fields developers have received planning for but have deliberately left untouched for one reason or another. These sites, their "land banks", could provide the required homes should they be developed. Developers say they would be unable to sell such homes - maybe they are right as mortgages & other finances are difficult to obtain.
And there is the heart of the problem, finance.
Meanwhile, developers seek planning on ever more sites in their desire to ravage green fields. How many of these will go into their land banks?

Manuel, You raise a significant point there re; vulnerability......I previously posted on “protect green belt thread”.....Our Chancellor / MP’s abandonment of his manifesto pledge regarding localism,........now forcing councils to accept / develop Brownfield and attack the planning process.....There is no incentive for developers to prepare/ clean /clear land at identified Brownfield, There will probably be a small take up in any event by developers who will now more than ever take CEC straight to Judicial process and pursue their attack upon the Green Belt (encouraged by the previous actions/ vote of Whiteley Menlove and others ).......When the proposals also discuss “ Automatic planning permission “ and penalties for not making the right decision in good time ...well it looks like the baby might be going out with the bath water again...... I am not against sensible and meaningful development of a proportionate nature (i.e.; good design, fitting social requirements BUT NOT EVERYWHERE),The YIMBY’s (Yes in My Back Yard) and COGS (Concrete Over Green Spaces) still want their concret jungle after all who wants countryside anyway??... Well I for one do !.....Sensibly designed and considered ..... development can be no bad thing,particularly brownfield ... and the intention may be good....BUT... it wont happen......there's no incentive to spend a fortune clearing / redeveloping a site......and the banks of land are already disguised in veiled holding names. George states Britain has been “ Incapable of building enough homes “ and “ I am not prepared to stand by when people who want to get on the housing ladder can’t do so “ Well in his constituency the current CEC plan to further sub divide the pockets of Green belt will do nothing to address these concerns, First time buyers ? Not a chance.... More of the same.....Definately

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodies” or as Sir Humphrey explained “If no one knows what you’re doing then no one knows what you’re doing wrong “.......( remember Lyme Green !! )

As usual our Council says a lot but does nothing to stop building on green fields. It is still in denial about its failed, and probably second time failed Local Plan. Meanwhile, there seem to be very long waits for the webcast to appear when the Cabinet discussed the Local Plan.

Nick - your contributions are well articulated, informed and funny! although your empty rhetoric lets you down.

I quote.......
"I am not against sensible and meaningful development of a proportionate nature (i.e.; good design, fitting social requirements BUT NOT EVERYWHERE)"

The real meaning....

I'm happy for development across brownfield sites (that i deem to be brownfield) as long the design fits perfectly with my preconceived view of architecture....although if the development damages a single blade of grass, generates any infrastructure changes, affects my house price or adds to local population numbers then im against it! The list could go on!