Blot on the landscape

I am angry. Near my house they are building a huge new housing estate on a greenfield countryside site. Nimby-ish? No, it is not that the houses are being built that has annoyed me, although it is heartbreaking to witness the brown scar cutting through once verdant fields. But it is the fact that row upon row of homes are going up over night without as much as a park, community centre, parade of shops or place of worship in sight...and I have been scouring for them.

John Prescott says we need new homes and if we do, then we do but the Deputy Prime Minister [shudder] also said, when talking about an innovative development in Greenwich, that all new developments would be environmentally and socially responsible. I think he may have gotten carried away. This massive new building plan doesn't seem to fit that ideal, this is part of the governments 'housing market regeneration' and in striving to complete it 's aims it's not just building on greenfield sites. It's also knocking down out dated properties and rebuilding them, one such, in Liverpool, includes Ringo Starr's boyhood home.

It seems madness that all the empty properties you see in our towns and cities can't be put to good use but we all know they cost more to renovate then build, right? Wrong! At least according to Jeff Howell in last weekend's Telegraph, and he makes a number of interesting points on the matter (listen up Mr P). He says the plans for Liverpool are "justified on the basis that, in the long term [new homes] will save energy - or CO2 emissions to use current jargon. Quite how knocking down thousands of existing homes and building thousands of new ones is going to save energy is beyond the comprehension not just of Ringo and Prince Charles but of most of us in the construction industry too".

He goes on to question the calculations made by the Office of the DPM who are responsible for this policy. He says "their calculations clearly ignor the energy used to demolish the existing properties, and the environmental impact of dumping the waste in landfill sites. Their belief also requires a certain blind faith in the energy saving properties of new houses which, like all government figures these days, are subject to 'targets' ".

So the march of these 'energy efficient' new homes goes on across the south east and northward, forgetting that there is a difference in quality between the respective old and new builds - solid brick walls, sturdy timber floors and partitions, hard to find in today's constructions. It seems ironic that whilst ranks of 'Barrett Boxes' encourage people to remain isolated, they probably get to know more about the lives of their neighbours, thanks to the paper thin walls, than if they met on the street, or heaven forbid, in the community centre!

And so much for the government's drive for 'respect'. Isn't the best way to form a more integrated and respectful society to increase opportunities for people to meet, generations to mix, to learn about each other and foster understanding and a sense of community? Perhaps the plans should go back to the drawing board.

And while we're on the subject of joined up thinking, the reason the cost of regeneration puts it outside the realms of possibility? Mr Howell explains "New building is unfairly favoured over refurbishment by the anomaly of VAT, which is zero for new houses but levied at the usual 17.5% on repairs to old ones". That makes sense - when profit over-rides building a sustainable country, I guess. Not to mention as Jeff Howell concludes that " The factor that the government figures ignor above all, however, is a social one. Victorian streets are what give character and history to most British towns and cities. You can't put a price on that".

Amen, rant over.