![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Monday, February 23, 1998 Published at 09:18 GMT Background Problems hamper brown-field development ![]() Villagers protest over a 200-house development
At present most houses are built in the countryside but the government has signalled it wants to reverse the trend.
However in the village of Balsall Common, between Birmingham and Coventry, locals are angry that their green areas are being eyed up by developers.
"There won't be any green belt," local resident Mary Hitchcock said. "Just down you can start walking to Coventry... you can be in Coventry in ten minutes walk."
There is an alternative to the urbanisation of green belts. Right across Britain old industrial heartlands, brown-fields, are now largely derelict.
But building homes on once smoke-blackened heartland comes at a cost.
The outlay for building each house on the Black Country ex-industrial land was between two and eight thousand pounds more than on a green field site.
Cost is not the only hurdle though.
"In the Black country you've had what we call the A to Z of contamination arsenic to zinc, heavy metals - you name it," he says.
One option the government could look at to make that happen is through taxing more profitable green field sites to give an added financial incentive to develop derelict lands to high standards.
The problem is most old industrial land is in the Midlands and the North - the biggest demand for new homes is in the South East.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||