Posted by

Posted on

27 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Air pollution, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Sidford Business Park, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, West End: WestClyst BroadClyst/ Pinhoe, West Hill, Woodbury

“Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals”

Not good news for people on the route of the Sidford Fields Industrial Estate – or anyone in any of the villages close to Exeter that EDDC wants to expand.

“Air pollution causes a “huge” reduction in intelligence, according to new research, indicating that the damage to society of toxic air is far deeper than the well-known impacts on physical health.

The research was conducted in China but is relevant across the world, with 95% of the global population breathing unsafe air. It found that high pollution levels led to significant drops in test scores in language and arithmetic, with the average impact equivalent to having lost a year of the person’s education.

“Polluted air can cause everyone to reduce their level of education by one year, which is huge,” said Xi Chen at Yale School of Public Health in the US, a member of the research team. “But we know the effect is worse for the elderly, especially those over 64, and for men, and for those with low education. If we calculate [the loss] for those, it may be a few years of education.”

Previous research has found that air pollution harms cognitive performance in students, but this is the first to examine people of all ages and the difference between men and women.

The damage in intelligence was worst for those over 64 years old, with serious consequences, said Chen: “We usually make the most critical financial decisions in old age.” Rebecca Daniels, from the UK public health charity Medact, said: “This report’s findings are extremely worrying.” “

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-pollution-causes-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

27 Aug 2018

Is YOUR village on the EDDC list for expansion? And another east/west divide

East Devon District Council Strategic Planning Committee are going to discuss:

“Principles for accommodating the future growth needs of East Devon”

on 4 September 2018.

The Committee are being asked to endorse

“The proposed principles for growth” as the basis for future discussion and consultation on accommodating extra growth in the district.”

The document is described as the “start of the debate” for future East Devon growth points for both the GESP (The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan) and the East Devon Local Plan review, which is required to be updated within the next two years.

For the last few years East Devon District Council have achieved their own Local Plan agreed target of 950 dwellings per year. (EDDC Target is 17,100 dwellings between the years of 2013 to 2031).

Recently Central Government decided to calculate each District`s housing requirement targets on a set matrix. East Devon’s build out figure has been set to be 844 homes per year. However, the report suggests that rather than achieve the Government target of 844 new houses per year there is a proposal to build out much higher levels of growth.

The report explains that the objective of higher growth could be achieved by what is called a “Growth Deal” with Central Government where a group of Councils agree to build more housing in return for infrastructure investment from central funds.

This proposed “Growth Deal” is being prepared by the Councils of East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge and Mid Devon through the “GESP” Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

It is recognised that Exeter is unable to provide the housing land required to sustain the expected growth of the city, and the rural areas and towns in the rest of the combined area will be required to increase their housing requirements in exchange for the infrastructure improvements for access to and from the city of Exeter.

Improvements to the motorway junctions, new roads, extra park and rides, rail improvements, new stations and an integrated transport system are all identified as priority improvements to overcome the already chronic delays on Exeter`s transport network. There are also aspirations for a “sports hub and concert venue” for Greater Exeter to be included in the GESP infrastructure needs.

The report gives a brief synopsis of the towns in East Devon and concludes that other than the new town of Cranbrook there is limited scope for growth due to the various towns’ proximity to the AONB designated areas, or they are bordering on the coast or close to flood plains.

The conclusion from the report is that the existing towns will only accommodate minimal growth, and with two-thirds of East Devon being included in the AONB of the Pebblebed Heaths or the Blackdown Hills the only area that can accommodate substantial growth is within the North West part of the district.

The report describes this area as the Western most quadrant of this district to the North of Exmouth and West of Ottery St Mary. The land is described to benefit from being relatively flat with no landscape designations. It is also well served by main roads with good vehicle access via the M5, A30, A3052 and A376 and has good existing public transport links with the railway line and existing bus routes.

There are 3 possible ways described as to how development could be achieved in this area.

1. Establish a further new town. Basically, create another Cranbrook. However, the report considers that the creation of another new town in the area could harm the delivery of Cranbrook.

2. Establish a number of new villages. Create a series of modern Devon villages but the report considers that this option would be most damaging in landscape terms.

3. Centre Growth around Existing Villages.

Growth would be required to be substantial with around 400 to 500 extra homes to be added to a number of existing villages (The report does not state how many villages will be required within this area). However, this could harm the character of the village and the existing community.

The new NPPF acknowledges that:

“The supply of a large number of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities.”

A list of the Parishes within the expansion area for extra housing area

By referring to a map of the area these are the Parishes(villages) which are within the West of the district which could have development of between 400 to 500 extra dwellings, parishes identified could be:

Nether Exe
Rewe
Brampford Speke
Upton Pyne.
Stoke Canon

All these Villages are North of Exeter and access is by way of the A377 – which is not listed as one of the featured roads, so it is unlikely these will be included.

Broadclyst
Clyst Honiton
Sowton
Rockbeare
Wimple.

These Villages are close to Cranbrook and therefore unlikely to be selected to avoid the villages and town merging.

Clyst Hydon
Clyst St Lawrence
Aylesbeare
Marsh Green

These Parishes are remote from a main road or railway station which probably eliminates them because of their unsustainable location.

Lympstone

This Village is already designated in the report to provide growth for Exmouth.

This leaves the following Parishes most likely to be included for further expansion in the proposals:

Poltimore
Huxham
Clyst St Mary
Clyst St George (includes the village of Ebford)
West Hill
Woodbury (includes the village of Woodbury Salterton and Exton)
Farringdon.

The “Principles for Growth” which the committee are being asked to agree to:

• A significant proportion of growth to be in the Western part of the district by either a new town or extending a number of villages or building new villages.

• Plus, modest growth in existing towns with strategic growth around Axminster, Exmouth (including Lympstone), Honiton and Ottery St Mary.

• All other Villages to be encouraged to provide modest growth through their Neighbourhood Plans.

• Focus development on main transport corridors if possible.

Conclusion:

For the last few years, East Devon has successfully complied with the government`s Housing Strategy, with their current Local Plan and at present build out rates, this will over subscribe the Government Building Target until the year 2031.

The Government is not forcing East Devon to co-operate with Exeter to provide some of their housing needs. This decision is totally at the discretion of the District Council and their leaders.

Yes, Exeter is a thriving growth city, and it is recognised that the road and rail connections are dire, but why destroy the character of a part of East Devon for these improvements?

The very reason people choose to relocate to Exeter, its surrounding towns and villages is the beautiful Devon countryside; the building of a mass of new housing will simply make the area a mirror image of the existing areas the people are wanting to move away from!

So, to satisfy the aspirations and needs of the City of Exeter, the rural west area of East Devon will be required to build many more houses with either another new town or new villages or building an extra 500 houses to a number of existing village communities.

Will the Strategic Planning Committee endorse this proposal or not?

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

25 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Air pollution, Austerity cuts, EDDC, Housing (local)

Comments

1 Comment

No development “at the whim of others” says Diviani – but doesn’t make clear who “others” are!

Possible list of “others” who might whim:

Us (likely – those of us living in a constantly concrete East Devon with no services and no infrastructure);

Those desperate for social housing and/or truly-affordable homes (unlikely – never been a consideration for EDDC, unlikely to change now);

Developers (unlikely given EDCC’s highly developer-friendly reputation);

Other members of the “Greater Exeter” consortium (where we and others have to take Exeter overspill whether we lime it or not);

Former members of the East Devon Business Forum (unlikely, mostly developers, they all remain in EDDC’s very good books).

“The government’s latest forecast for the minimum number of new homes to be built in East Devon every year is to be considered by district council planners.

The implications of the requirement for 844 homes to be constructed annually will be discussed by the Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting on Tuesday, September 4.

Members will consider how this growth will impact on jobs, infrastructure and community facilities.

A report explains to the committee that the government’s latest housing needs calculation should be taken as a baseline figure only and is likely to increase as a further strategy for growth emerges in the future.

It says the latest forecast doesn’t take into account wider changes in East Devon over the last few years such as higher than normal economic growth which led to an increase in housing need in the current Local Plan.

The report identifies key themes to be considered by the committee to ensure future growth in the district is ‘positive and sustainable’. The themes include healthy and prosperous communities, environmental protection and enhancement, resource consumption and climate change and economic growth, education and employment.

A number of key issues are identified under each of these themes with set principles for a future growth strategy. These include delivering housing to meet the needs of all areas of the community, limiting growth within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, protecting areas at greatest risk of flooding and ensuring adequate employment space is provided to meet the needs of businesses.

The report also considers locations in the district and how they are able to accommodate growth that meets the principles. Many of East Devon’s existing towns are heavily constrained while some have clear opportunities to grow and expand. It considers opportunities around existing villages and for new communities to accommodate the levels of growth required by government.

Committee chairman Paul Diviani said: “Planning for the future of our outstanding place will ensure we put the right developments in the right place and are not subject to the whims of others. The government is setting out its requirements of all local authorities and we now need to ensure we respond in a way that works for us.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/figure-set-at-844-annually-1-5665950

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Aug 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Brownfield sites, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality, Land Supply, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

“Government £200m brownfields building fund falls flat, as number of new homes declines”

“A £200million Government fund to pay for more homes on industrial land has resulted in the opposite effect, with fewer homes built on brownfield areas than before it was set up.

Official Government’s land use change statistics show that the proportion of new homes registered on previously developed land has fallen by 4 percentage points since 2014, when the fund was set up.

Yet over the same period the number of new residential addresses on supposedly heavily protected Green Belt land has increased by the same proportion – 4 per cent.

Separately, over the same period – 2013/14 to 2016/17 – the proportion of new residential addresses on the protected Green Belt land increased from 3 per cent to 4 per cent of all new homes built.

The Government’s record on building on brownfield sites was attacked by Labour which said minister’s commitment to building on brownfield sites was “hot air”.

The £200million fund was announced by Brandon Lewis, the current Tory party chairman and then then-Housing minister, in August 2014 so “councils across the country can now team up with developers and bid for government assistance to build thousands of new homes on previously-developed land”.

Mr Lewis published bidding criteria to create 10 housing zones on brownfield land, each able to deliver up to 2,000 new homes each.

The new zones, which will be outside London, should be large enough to deliver 750 to 2,000 properties and would help councils boost housebuilding on previously-developed land while safeguading the countryside, he said.

However John Healey MP, Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said the figures showed that the Government had gone backwards on its pledge to encourage more building on brownfield sites.

He said: “If hot air built homes then Ministers would have fixed our housing crisis. Despite big promises to get building on brownfield land, official Government figures show we’ve gone backwards.

“It’s clear that Ministers are failing to get good value-for-money for taxpayers.

“By giving developers a free rein to do what they want, the Government is failing [to] get homes for local people built where they are needed.”

Matt Thomson, Head of Planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, backed the findings, saying that “promises to build the homes the nation needs while protecting the countryside are not being carried through.

“Our analysis of the government’s new ‘planning rulebook’ suggests that despite a lot of warm words current trends will continue, to the detriment of both town and country.

“The government must stick to its guns and end this constant cycle of broken promises.

“They need to rein back greenfield development where suitable brownfield land is available, and discourage growth where it cannot happen without compromising their own policies intended to manage sprawl and protect open land.”

Last week the CPRE warned that green belt was disappearing at an “alarming rate” with the equivalent of 5,000 football pitches lost because of a relaxation of planning laws.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

17 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Housing (local), Inequality

Comments

2 Comments

“Help to Buy mess as taxpayers subsidise thousands of homes for couples earning more than £100,000”

“Thousands of wealthy families are taking advantage of a taxpayer scheme designed to help struggling first-time buyers get on the housing ladder.

More than 6,700 households with incomes over £100,000 have bought homes using Help to Buy, according to the government’s own figures.

The scheme provides taxpayer cash to people seeking a mortgage. But despite its original aim to help people who could not afford big deposits, nearly one in 20 households with support have six-figure incomes.

And families with incomes of £50,000 or more have now received 40 per cent of loans, according to the report by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Of the families who used the scheme, 136,700 were first-time buyers. A fifth of families using the scheme were not first-time buyers.

There is no maximum income on the Help to Buy scheme, which applies to new-build homes.

The scheme allows house hunters to purchase new-builds worth up to £600,000 using deposits of only 5pc – or £30,000.

The Government loans up to another 20pc interest-free for five years – or £120,000. In London, the taxpayer loan can reach 40pc of the value of the property – or £240,000.

When the house is sold, the government takes the same proportion of the sale price. If it goes up, the government makes money. If it goes down, the taxpayer makes a loss.

Campbell Robb, Joseph Rowntree Foundation chief executive, said a lack of cash invested in affordable housing meant more pressure on families forced to rent.

A government spokesman said: ‘The majority of those using our Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme had household incomes of £50,000 or less.’ “

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6068919/Help-Buy-mess-taxpayers-subsidise-thousands-homes-couples-earning-100-000.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

14 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Housing (local), Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

Fiddling while social housing burns

“When she first came to power Theresa May promised to address Britain’s “burning injustices”. A few weeks ago, MPs were asked to quietly drop the phrase. Tied up in the complications of Brexit, the government has done very little to help the poor and disadvantaged – those who voted in protest against their own circumstances in the referendum. Neglecting this group has not helped past governments, and this one seems to be making the same mistake.

A new green paper on social housing seems unlikely to buck the trend. It recognises that there is a problem with social housing, but fails to recognise the nature of that problem: that there simply needs to be more of it. Instead, it talks about making social housing “fairer”, and “better quality”, and “challenging the stereotypes that exist about residents and their communities”. It says, rather patronisingly, that no social housing tenant should feel a “stigma” about their situation. That is not the pressing issue.

There are almost 1.2 million people on the waiting list for social housing. As they wait, people are forced to pay rent they cannot afford, and as a consequence they cannot afford to buy food. It is no coincidence that the use of food banks in Britain is soaring. But the government is doing little to help. Experts say we need between 70,000 and 90,000 new homes for social housing a year to meet the need in England. Last year fewer than 6,000 were built – a record low. And there are no new funds in the offing to increase supply.

Instead, the green paper concentrates on initiatives such as league tables for social landlords, which it says will “rebalance the landlord/tenant relationship”. But even this is unlikely to work. With such a short supply of social housing, landlords at the bottom of the league aren’t going to suffer from a lack of interest. Neither is it going to be easy for social tenants to flit between houses, depending on their ratings. And social landlords aren’t really a problem either, as these tend to be housing associations or local councils, and bound by professional codes and regulations. Much more dubious are the amateur landlords in the private sector – able to chuck tenants out on a whim – which is where people end up when they cannot get social housing.

This is not the first time the government has tried to distract from a funding crisis by introducing new league tables: it has done this with universities, and rail operators, and lately with nursing and midwifery. It’s an underhand technique – an attempt to shift attention off the government and on to the competition, and to show that the system is at least working for some. But it’s time it started to address the real problems – and for houses that means more building.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/tories-houses-build-landlord-crisis-league-tables

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

13 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Inequality, Land Supply, NPPF, Planning System

A useful critique on new planning regulations (local councils stay silent on their views)

Why CPRE thinks it is a developers’ charter (again):

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/new-planning-policy-framework-slammed-1892197

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

13 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Archant Press, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Exmouth, Housing (local), Taylor Wimpey, Transparency

Taylor Wimpey, Archant, EDDC and red dust in Littleham, Exmouth : “fake news”?

Below is information from an Exmouth resident sent to an Archant local reporter regarding development at Littleham, Exmouth, the “red dust” it is creating and its effect on a large number of frustrated residents.

The resident has received no reply to either email and the newspaper has not balanced its original mild article to reflect the information in these emails:

“11 August 2018:

Ms Brainwood [Archant reporter who wrote original article]:

Further to my email from last week I write to inform you of the following. It has been noted by the way that you did not pay me the courtesy of a reply.

Local residents are quite rightly annoyed that your article gave false impressions.

You reported the following :

1. The only residents to be affected were two elderly people in Buckingham Close.
2. The only area affected was indeed Buckingham Close.
3. Taylor Wimpey were doing everything they could to minimise the red dust site vehicles generated.
4. EDDC were happy that the red dust was “ within limits “.
5. Environmental Health Officers from EDDC were quite happy with the overall situation.

The real situation could not be further from the truth.

If you had asked local residents they would have informed you the red dust was experienced in Littleham Road, Midway, The Crescent, Jarvis Close, The Broadway, Douglas Road and Cranford Road just to name a few areas.

Local resident who I have spoken to agree your article is at best sloppy journalism and at worst, fake news.

I read on the Exmouth Journal website your Group Editor Philip Griffin tells us the paper is “ respected for it`s balanced reporting “. We all had a good laugh at that.

For you information the cycle path in Jarvis Close north of Plumb Park is being currently dug up by South West Water to lay pipes. The work will last for 5 weeks. More excessive noise, more disruption and even more dust just a couple of metres from residences in Littleham Road.

Finally, it is your prerogative not to reply to my emails, it is our prerogative not to purchase your paper. “

and the resident’s earlier email to which the resident also had no reply:

“2 August 2018

To: laura.brainwood@archant.co.uk
Subject: Red dust causes misery for residents near Plumb Park development

I would like to make you aware of a few facts regarding the current red dust problem that you reported on in the 1st August 2018 edition of the Exmouth Journal.

“ Taylor Wimpey have taken measures to reduce the impact “. This is not correct.

When I have contacted their Exeter call centre ( 01392 442617 ) they say dust suppression is taking place, but it is not. We are told a water bowser “ damp down” every day. As the site is visible from my bedroom window in Littleham Road, 30 meters from the north fence, I can inform you it never takes place. We are also told a street sweeper is used to suppress the dust. We have never seen the vehicle.

A resident who lives in Jarvis Close (his wife has a very serious case of COPD), confronted the Site Manger face to face recently and was told “damping down“ takes place in certain areas every 20 minutes. This is a lie.

I have contacted Environmental Health to complain about the red dust. I am not the only Littleham Road resident to have done this.

Alice Gill EHO did call back to inform me that Taylor Wimpy is taking action to reduce the dust. She is telling me what Taylor Wimpey is telling her. It is just not happening. Recent emails informing them again, that there is still a big problem have been ignored.

Food has to be covered to stop contamination from the dust in the kitchen. As windows are left open due to the warm weather we even have dust on tooth brushes in the bathroom. It has permeated into closed cupboards. Yes. It is inside the house!!!

In the meantime elderly resident who have COPD have to inhale red dust, along with everybody else, just because Taylor Wimpey can`t be bothered to do anything.

EDDC Development Management Committee was informed in June 2013 by many local residents that this development would blight the lives of local people. They were not interested.

Perhaps your readers would like to know a few facts regarding this issue, plus the current disinterest.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

6 Aug 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Land Supply, Planning System, Rural communities

Project Planning Fear: MP Truss says rip up planning rules or get Corbyn!

“A cabinet minister faced a furious backlash yesterday after saying the Tories must build homes in the countryside – or they will hand power to Jeremy Corbyn.

Liz Truss, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said planning laws should be ripped up as she complained about the number of Nimbys in Britain.

The outspoken minister said ‘a lot more’ sites needed to be opened up. She also called for those living in cities to be allowed to add extra floors to their homes without needing permission. Miss Truss argued the house-building overhaul was needed to keep Mr Corbyn out of Downing Street at the next election.

Liz Truss argued the house-building overhaul was needed to keep Jeremy Corbyn (pictured) out of Downing Street at the next election

But Tory colleagues warned the party would be ‘run out of office’ if it went ahead with ‘catastrophic’ proposals that fail to protect rural Britain and the green belts around London and other major cities.

The row comes a day after campaigners warned the green belt is already being ‘gobbled up at an alarming rate’ to build thousands of homes.

A report from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, published yesterday, showed plans for almost 460,000 homes have been pencilled in for green belt land since 2013 as councils lift planning protections, opening the way for developers.

Asked in an interview whether she would you be happy to ‘start paving over our green and pleasant land’, Miss Truss replied: ‘I do think we need to open up more land for building, a lot more. There are a lot Nimbys in Britain.’

Questioned on whether there are many ‘not in my backyard’ objectors in her own party, she said: ‘There are, but I think it is a dwindling number.

‘People recognise the choice is building on more greenfield sites and making sure there are enough homes for next generation or losing the election and ending up with Jeremy Corbyn, whose policy appears to be appropriating property.

Liz Truss, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said planning laws should be ripped up as she complained about the number of Nimbys in Britain

‘So I know which one I’d choose – it’s having more homes available on the open market for people of whatever generation to afford.’ The minister added: ‘I also think we need to make it easier to build up in cities. I quite like the Japanese system where essentially you can build up on top of your house without having to get extra planning permission. I think we need to be more liberal about these policies.’

Miss Truss, who was appointed second-in-command at the Treasury last June after previously serving as justice secretary and environment secretary, said in the interview with the Financial Times’ politics podcast that she would one day like to be the country’s first female chancellor. ‘Well, who would say no to that?’ she said.

But when asked if she would like to be prime minister, Miss Truss, who is MP for South West Norfolk, replied: ‘I’m not sure about that one.’

Tory former minister Crispin Blunt last night warned the party it would suffer an electoral ‘catastrophe’ if it does not protect the green belt. The MP for Reigate, who is co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for London’s green belt, said Conservative local councillors already faced being ‘run out of office’ in areas where ministers had raised housebuilding targets.

‘Residents’ associations are going off their rocket,’ he said.

Mr Blunt said trying to meet demand in the South East was ‘sucking the best and brightest out of the North’. Hindering development in the South-East would encourage growith in the North, he added.

Tom Fyans of the CPRE said: ‘We agree that there is a severe lack of affordable homes available for people to buy and rent.

‘However, what Liz Truss fails to recognise is that, opening up the green belt will not solve this issue.

Tory former minister Crispin Blunt (pictured) last night warned the party it would suffer an electoral ‘catastrophe’ if it does not protect the green belt

‘Almost three quarters of the homes built on green belt land last year were unaffordable.’ He said the ‘perfect solution’ to ‘this barbaric assault on the green belt’ was to use brownfield land to its full capacity.

The CPRE’s report showed there are plans for almost 460,000 homes on green belt land. Green belt areas can be built on if councils grant planning permission directly or remove the land’s official status. Both methods have been used.

Only 70 houses or flats were built in the green belt in 2009/10 compared with 8,143 in 2017/18.

Miss Truss has become one of the most prominent advocates in the Cabinet for free market liberalism. Earlier this year, she attracted attention for a speech in which she appeared to ridicule the Prime Minister’s plan to ban plastic straws.”

http://35.192.208.249/2018/08/07/tory-minister-liz-truss-sparks-fury-after-demanding-laws-protecting-green-fields-are-ripped-up/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

30 Jul 2018

Posted under

Housing (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

1 Comment

Food or houses?

If, as it seems is essential after Brexit, we have to grow more of our own food to make us more self-sufficient, how do we do it if more and more high-grade agricultural land is being gobbled up for housing, while developers ignore brownfield sites?

In World War 2 everyone was encouraged to “grow your own”. But how do you do that with a tiny patio or no patio at all and no extra allotments?

For many years we have relied on food imports to cover shortages. Do we really want bleach-washed American chicken on the dinner tables of our tiny new homes built on agricultural land?

Oops, sorry, no space for a dining table – on our knees in front of the TV in our tiny new homes!

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: