‘The way forward is low-cost housing… but why here?’
JULIA HORTON and DAVID ROSS
"I have heard that there will be an industrial estate between the roundabout and these fields in the front, with a primary school over there, where all the houses will be as well."
Everywhere William Turnbull points to as he describes his understanding of the new Stirling "super-village" is currently a vision of lush green countryside.
As he stands in front of his five-bedroom house in his eight-acre garden, complete with an ornamental bridge over a pond, cows graze peacefully in the fields.
It is hardly surprising that, like many residents in the area, Mr Turnbull is opposed to the plans to transform the land into a new town the size of Dunblane with up to 2500 homes, plus schools and other amenities.
A consortium of developers was so against the idea that it appealed to the Court of Session to quash Stirling Council's plans. But on Thursday law lords ruled that the council's controversial proposal can go ahead.
So now the area known as Durieshill, which lies just outside Stirling near the village of Plean between the M9 and the M80, will be home to one of Scotland's biggest housing developments.
With a leading housing charity warning yesterday that cuts to government funding to councils for affordable housing jeopardise the government's own targets, the site is now on the frontline of planning battles that are set to take place nationwide.
For, while most people understand the need for more affordable housing, many do not want developments built on their doorstep.
Mr Turnbull, a 59-year-old newsagent and bachelor, said: "I absolutely loathe the thought of it. I have spent 10 years here building my house with my own hands.
"I know the way forward is to have low-cost housing because first-time buyers are struggling but why here?"
He added: "I think they wanted the monkey off their back and building 2500 houses here takes the pressure off them."
Like other objectors he is concerned that the council has not thought through the plans, particularly with respect to traffic.
"I can leave here at 9am now and traffic will be stretching from the Pirnhall roundabout for half a mile down the Denny road. You have to sit there until someone lets you out. The roads are going to be a nightmare."
There is no escaping the fact that houses will have to be built somewhere. But across the country housing associations are struggling to find more private cash to shore up the gap left by the government's reduction in funds of up to two-thirds.
Lochalsh and Skye Housing Association has to deal with housing pressure points such as the village of Plockton on the mainland and the Sleat and Waternish peninsulas on Skye.
According to James Stephenson, the housing association's senior development officer, the latest cut will almost certainly mean that Skye and Lochalsh's budget will only be half of what they enjoyed last year.
He added that the current housing market conditions and the level of government expenditure it would be inconceivable that any targets could be hit. "The latest information we have is that around 400 affordable houses are needed in our area. This year we should complete 74 new affordable houses, up from 49 last year but, all but 10 of these were started last financial year.
"The rate at which we can provide more, much-needed affordable housing, in the future is likely to be serious curtailed by both the current level of government funding and due to the changes afoot to the housing association grant mechanism."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: crieff resident, strathearn on 11:06pm Fri 11 Jul 08
It's the wrong place if it ever happens. Plean along with Cowie (and even the People's Republic of Bannockburn) is a byword for a place left neglected by decades of neglect. Naturally they've voted Labour for all these decades. No wonder developers aren't queueing up to build round there. It's the sort of place I drive through with the car doors and windows locked.
It's the wrong place if it ever happens. Plean along with Cowie (and even the People's Republic of Bannockburn) is a byword for a place left neglected by decades of neglect. Naturally they've voted Labour for all these decades. No wonder developers aren't queueing up to build round there. It's the sort of place I drive through with the car doors and windows locked.
Posted by: aapeacock, Bo'ness on 3:27am Sat 12 Jul 08
Facing 4/5 years of reccesion now is the time to build Cooncil Hooses and employ / train the tradesmen with conditions
My Uncle Lablier Cooncilor used to do very well from " Key Money "
Money he took from you jumping the Council List
It was about one weeks wages
Facing 4/5 years of reccesion now is the time to build Cooncil Hooses and employ / train the tradesmen with conditions
My Uncle Lablier Cooncilor used to do very well from " Key Money "
Money he took from you jumping the Council List
It was about one weeks wages
Posted by: wolf Klita, clydebank on 7:27am Sat 12 Jul 08
[bold]I would just about agree with thisif it would be a eco town, but will it? I dont think so, as the big knobs in Government have learned nothing out of the current energy and money crisis!!!!! Sack the lot!![/bold]
I would just about agree with thisif it would be a eco town, but will it? I dont think so, as the big knobs in Government have learned nothing out of the current energy and money crisis!!!!! Sack the lot!! Posted by: Kiera Hardie on 9:52am Sat 12 Jul 08
What is wrong with 2500 Scots being able to live in a nice new house in a nice area? And really who cares if some bozo in a five bedroom house and an ornamental bridge over a pond has to see workplaces and schools and houses and children living near him? He's a middle aged bachelor - what does he need five bedrooms for anyway?
These are all good questions to which the answers are nothing, nobody much, and goodness only knows.
What is wrong with 2500 Scots being able to live in a nice new house in a nice area? And really who cares if some bozo in a five bedroom house and an ornamental bridge over a pond has to see workplaces and schools and houses and children living near him? He's a middle aged bachelor - what does he need five bedrooms for anyway?
These are all good questions to which the answers are nothing, nobody much, and goodness only knows.
Posted by: Peter Thomson, SNP for me! on 10:50am Sat 12 Jul 08
I don't quite understand who will fill all these 'affordable' homes.
I presume it will be folk looking to commute into Glasgow or Edinburgh for work. What is going to be the impact of all these additional commuters on rail and road?
If you want to see the future for Stirling visit the east side of Dunfermilne between Waggoner's Way and Linburn Road where the 'affordable' housing has been parked in corners where 'villas' could not be built.
I don't quite understand who will fill all these 'affordable' homes.
I presume it will be folk looking to commute into Glasgow or Edinburgh for work. What is going to be the impact of all these additional commuters on rail and road?
If you want to see the future for Stirling visit the east side of Dunfermilne between Waggoner's Way and Linburn Road where the 'affordable' housing has been parked in corners where 'villas' could not be built.
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, Glasgow on 1:32pm Sat 12 Jul 08
[quote]"I absolutely loathe the thought of it {other people being allowed to bnuild houses} I have spent 10 years here building my house with my own hands[/quote] .
It is merely human that those who get anything first will wish to pull up the ladder behind them. Should one be able to prevent others from buying a new car which outshines your ow; how about being able to prevent other people going on holiday to the same place as you (though the Green flying ban is pretty much like this); how about your wife being allowed to stop a neighbur buying a similar dress?
These all seem laughable because government does not conspire with early arrivers to stop the common people getting cars or holidays or dresses.
It should not normally give locals a veto over building homes. If all the government restrictions on housebuilding were removed houses could be built for 1/4 of present prices & there would be no shortage.
"I absolutely loathe the thought of it {other people being allowed to bnuild houses} I have spent 10 years here building my house with my own hands
.
It is merely human that those who get anything first will wish to pull up the ladder behind them. Should one be able to prevent others from buying a new car which outshines your ow; how about being able to prevent other people going on holiday to the same place as you (though the Green flying ban is pretty much like this); how about your wife being allowed to stop a neighbur buying a similar dress?
These all seem laughable because government does not conspire with early arrivers to stop the common people getting cars or holidays or dresses.
It should not normally give locals a veto over building homes. If all the government restrictions on housebuilding were removed houses could be built for 1/4 of present prices & there would be no shortage.
Posted by: dean68, uk on 2:11pm Sat 12 Jul 08
Overpopulation: The cause of our growing environmental woes
According to the Government and independent academic demographics experts, Britain is about to witness unprecedented population growth, ranging from five to ten million, over the next twenty-five years.
With the birth rate of indigenous Britons just about at “replacement” level at best, it is clear that almost all this future growth will be down to either immigration or births within migrant communities already established here. I would refer sceptics to both the government’s Office of National Statistics (OS) site or to Migration Watch UK’s highly informative site, for confirmation.
The impact of population growth is already manifesting itself in many undesirable ways. Quite apart from the growing pressure on homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and the environment in general, is landfill sourcing.
For years now it has been recognised that Britain is simply running out of suitable “holes in the ground” in which to dump the millions of tons of rubbish we generate as a nation every year.
As our population increases – so does the demand upon our limited stock of suitable sites. And it is not simply a question of digging out even more huge holes in our countryside – important issues such as ground water contamination and the destruction of our rural habitats have to be carefully considered.
In addition, common sense dictates that there are only so many suitable sites available. Indeed, so bad is the problem in some areas of the country, particularly in the congested southeast, that some councils are reported as exporting their garbage, in giant maritime dustbin ships, to the Far-East for disposal! Other local authorities are investing in giant incinerators – ever mindful of the deadly carcinogens some of these have been known to vent in their “clean” exhaust stack systems!
In the final analysis Britain’s capacity for creating rubbish is directly linked to overpopulation.
To state the blindingly obvious - the larger the population – the greater the capacity for rubbish creation and the larger the demand for environmentally destructive landfill! To which we should also mention the increasing cost of garbage disposal!
Conversely, halting immigration not only serves to largely curtail the increase in waste creation but it also buys us time to find more effective ways of disposing of our country’s annual garbage mountain – other than by turning our precious countryside (or someone else’s) into one huge rubbish tip!
In this context immigration is – quite literally – rubbish!
Yet - as with homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and the environment in general - landfill sourcing is an issue that arises directly out of overpopulation. And overpopulation is, without a shadow of a doubt, fuelled almost entirely by immigration! Is this why the Green Party, for instance, refuses to recognise immigration as the greatest threat to this country’s habitats, our countryside and our quality of life? Is this why they campaign against the symptoms, rather than the predominant cause of these critical environmental threats?
So, once again I ask: Immigration - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Overpopulation: The cause of our growing environmental woes
According to the Government and independent academic demographics experts, Britain is about to witness unprecedented population growth, ranging from five to ten million, over the next twenty-five years.
With the birth rate of indigenous Britons just about at “replacement” level at best, it is clear that almost all this future growth will be down to either immigration or births within migrant communities already established here. I would refer sceptics to both the government’s Office of National Statistics (OS) site or to Migration Watch UK’s highly informative site, for confirmation.
The impact of population growth is already manifesting itself in many undesirable ways. Quite apart from the growing pressure on homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and the environment in general, is landfill sourcing.
For years now it has been recognised that Britain is simply running out of suitable “holes in the ground” in which to dump the millions of tons of rubbish we generate as a nation every year.
As our population increases – so does the demand upon our limited stock of suitable sites. And it is not simply a question of digging out even more huge holes in our countryside – important issues such as ground water contamination and the destruction of our rural habitats have to be carefully considered.
In addition, common sense dictates that there are only so many suitable sites available. Indeed, so bad is the problem in some areas of the country, particularly in the congested southeast, that some councils are reported as exporting their garbage, in giant maritime dustbin ships, to the Far-East for disposal! Other local authorities are investing in giant incinerators – ever mindful of the deadly carcinogens some of these have been known to vent in their “clean” exhaust stack systems!
In the final analysis Britain’s capacity for creating rubbish is directly linked to overpopulation.
To state the blindingly obvious - the larger the population – the greater the capacity for rubbish creation and the larger the demand for environmentally destructive landfill! To which we should also mention the increasing cost of garbage disposal!
Conversely, halting immigration not only serves to largely curtail the increase in waste creation but it also buys us time to find more effective ways of disposing of our country’s annual garbage mountain – other than by turning our precious countryside (or someone else’s) into one huge rubbish tip!
In this context immigration is – quite literally – rubbish!
Yet - as with homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and the environment in general - landfill sourcing is an issue that arises directly out of overpopulation. And overpopulation is, without a shadow of a doubt, fuelled almost entirely by immigration! Is this why the Green Party, for instance, refuses to recognise immigration as the greatest threat to this country’s habitats, our countryside and our quality of life? Is this why they campaign against the symptoms, rather than the predominant cause of these critical environmental threats?
So, once again I ask: Immigration - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Posted by: tris, scotland on 2:55pm Sat 12 Jul 08
Not in my back yard
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 3:27pm Sat 12 Jul 08
Agree with Dean, we should give this and all future planning a lot more thought as the very last thing we want to do is to go down the very same road as the south and East of England. All of the problems they have done there at the moment are very much due to overcrowding and the pressures that puts on society.
A bit more thoughtful, long term planning would not go amiss, nor slapping down and curbing the enthusiasm of builders to throw up cheap, poor quality housing (AKA future slums) wherever they can.
Agree with Dean, we should give this and all future planning a lot more thought as the very last thing we want to do is to go down the very same road as the south and East of England. All of the problems they have done there at the moment are very much due to overcrowding and the pressures that puts on society.
A bit more thoughtful, long term planning would not go amiss, nor slapping down and curbing the enthusiasm of builders to throw up cheap, poor quality housing (AKA future slums) wherever they can.
Posted by: Kiera Hardie on 4:19pm Sat 12 Jul 08
So if no more new houses are built it will keep the population down?
Clever thinking. Cos we want fewer young people living here to pay taxes for public services and to look after us in our seventies, eighties, nineties and beyond.
So if no more new houses are built it will keep the population down?
Clever thinking. Cos we want fewer young people living here to pay taxes for public services and to look after us in our seventies, eighties, nineties and beyond.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 4:33pm Sat 12 Jul 08
No I didn't say that Kiera. I said that we should think more before we do it as the country has only so much water and land available and we cannot aford to waste it on indiscrimiate and wasteful projects.
Proper long term planning taking into account fresh water supplies, waste water disposal, waste disposal and food production are all going to be of the greatest importance in this coming century and we need to start taking note and changing our habits now.
At the moment everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over oil resources but our real problem in the future is going to be water resources, how we use it, how we manage it and how we store it. With a rapidly growing and expanding population, global warming and dwindling water availability it's a recipe for catastrophe if we do nothing.
No I didn't say that Kiera. I said that we should think more before we do it as the country has only so much water and land available and we cannot aford to waste it on indiscrimiate and wasteful projects.
Proper long term planning taking into account fresh water supplies, waste water disposal, waste disposal and food production are all going to be of the greatest importance in this coming century and we need to start taking note and changing our habits now.
At the moment everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over oil resources but our real problem in the future is going to be water resources, how we use it, how we manage it and how we store it. With a rapidly growing and expanding population, global warming and dwindling water availability it's a recipe for catastrophe if we do nothing.
Posted by: John Clark on 5:11pm Sat 12 Jul 08
This newsagent sounds like a Tommy Tanker.
So, he built his own house? What's that do do with anything?
He is simply trying to prevent others from enjoying what he has enjoyed.
NOTE the article does NOT say where this gut came from. Did he move into the area like? I trust newcomers will not be using his shop eh?
This newsagent sounds like a Tommy Tanker.
So, he built his own house? What's that do do with anything?
He is simply trying to prevent others from enjoying what he has enjoyed.
NOTE the article does NOT say where this gut came from. Did he move into the area like? I trust newcomers will not be using his shop eh?
Posted by: John Clark on 5:12pm Sat 12 Jul 08
As for this newsagent, where is his shop?
I bet its not where his house is eh?
He makes his money from the poorer sorts in a nearby town eh? Vomit inducing stuff.
As for this newsagent, where is his shop?
I bet its not where his house is eh?
He makes his money from the poorer sorts in a nearby town eh? Vomit inducing stuff.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (13)
