2 thoughts on “Greenfield, brownfield – now “amberfield”!”
I have translated one paragraph from Rics-speak to reality english as follows:
“Rics believes that amberfield sites would enable homes to be built faster and reduce costs, while providing certainty to investors and encouraging local infrastructure improvements.”
should read:
“RICS believes that amberfield sites would enable developers to increase their profits massively by building more homes each at greater profit providing greater dividends to investors and encouraging local infrastructure improvements (which would otherwise collapse under the strain of new homes, forcing councils (or EDDC at least) to spend local taxpayer money instead of s106 money which was given back to the developer, or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money which wasn’t collected because the CIL policy was not in place.”
P.S. I note also that Jeremy Blackburn, Rics head of policy, said: “The planning system needs to be responsive to the needs of customers and increased confidence is needed in which sites can be taken forward.”
There’s that “C” word again – “customers” – meaning developers. What about the existing local residents who don’t want the beauty (esp. in AONB) spoiled by random developments outside existing settlement boundaries??
You know, those local residents who elect their councillors and who fund their council?
East Devon Watch 
I have translated one paragraph from Rics-speak to reality english as follows:
“Rics believes that amberfield sites would enable homes to be built faster and reduce costs, while providing certainty to investors and encouraging local infrastructure improvements.”
should read:
“RICS believes that amberfield sites would enable developers to increase their profits massively by building more homes each at greater profit providing greater dividends to investors and encouraging local infrastructure improvements (which would otherwise collapse under the strain of new homes, forcing councils (or EDDC at least) to spend local taxpayer money instead of s106 money which was given back to the developer, or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money which wasn’t collected because the CIL policy was not in place.”
LikeLike
P.S. I note also that Jeremy Blackburn, Rics head of policy, said: “The planning system needs to be responsive to the needs of customers and increased confidence is needed in which sites can be taken forward.”
There’s that “C” word again – “customers” – meaning developers. What about the existing local residents who don’t want the beauty (esp. in AONB) spoiled by random developments outside existing settlement boundaries??
You know, those local residents who elect their councillors and who fund their council?
LikeLike