Is Lenham station under threat of closure?

[yorksrob]

That typically doesn’t get past nimbys. There are homes younger than the residents, who think they have guaranteed right to see the fields.

Ah, do they must have been built at some stage !

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm surprised that is not an AONB.

I think that if you want more houses in those sorts of areas, small extensions to existing settlements are the way to go

Indeed, however we have a housing crisis and these are desirable areas to live. Till we economically redistribute this country, the SE is going to become more and more built up.

 

[nw1]

That typically doesn’t get past nimbys. There are homes younger than the residents, who think they have guaranteed right to see the fields.

My dad was one such person back in the late 80s I have to admit. There was a (really, quite small and unobtrusive) extension to our 1979 estate planned in 1989, and he got so worked up that he decided we had to move.

This is despite living in a very beautiful area of southern England that this small extension really wouldn't have made much difference to the enjoyment of.

Indeed, however we have a housing crisis and these are desirable areas to live. Till we economically redistribute this country, the SE is going to become more and more built up.

But if there is a housing crisis, why build in the "desirable" areas? Why not just build somewhere less pretty and attractive, though still close to London?

Building in "desirable" areas makes those places less desirable. Building somewhere which is already partly-developed, and not especially pretty, solves the crisis while preserving valuable areas of countryside.

Cynically I wonder whether it's because it gives developers more profit (as houses in rural mid Kent will fetch more than say north Kent), and some MPs and councillors are shareholders in development companies.

 

[WesternBiker]

But if there is a housing crisis, why build in the "desirable" areas? Why not just build somewhere less pretty and attractive, though still close to London?

This thread is going rather off topic, but the short answer to your question is demand and supply.

People simply want to live in desirable areas rather than somewhere less desirable!

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the rail network in Kent rather facilitates this: small settlements in attractive rural locations with regular services to London, that would be the envy of similar places elsewhere in the country.

 

[nw1]

This thread is going rather off topic, but the short answer to your question is demand and supply.

People simply want to live in desirable areas rather than somewhere less desirable!

But if there's a housing crisis, then surely the aim is just to build the housing anywhere reasonable (close to an employment centre such as London, at least) rather than 'attractive rural locations' ?

The 'attractive rural locations' won't be attractive or rural anymore if they become masses of houses!

(Maybe this should be split out to a separate thread...)

 

[yorksrob]

My dad was one such person back in the late 80s I have to admit. There was a (really, quite small and unobtrusive) extension to our 1979 estate planned in 1989, and he got so worked up that he decided we had to move.

This is despite living in a very beautiful area of southern England that this small extension really wouldn't have made much difference to the enjoyment of.



But if there is a housing crisis, why build in the "desirable" areas? Why not just build somewhere less pretty and attractive, though still close to London?

Building in "desirable" areas makes those places less desirable. Building somewhere which is already partly-developed, and not especially pretty, solves the crisis while preserving valuable areas of countryside.

Cynically I wonder whether it's because it gives developers more profit (as houses in rural mid Kent will fetch more than say north Kent), and some MPs and councillors are shareholders in development companies.

Agree with your point. Covering desirable rural areas in concrete and urban sprawl will only make them less desirable and prevent them from delivering a benefit to people from urban areas who would otherwise visit rather than live there.

 

[WesternBiker]

But if there's a housing crisis, then surely the aim is just to build the housing anywhere reasonable (close to an employment centre such as London, at least) rather than 'attractive rural locations' ?

The 'attractive rural locations' won't be attractive or rural anymore if they become masses of houses!

(Maybe this should be split out to a separate thread...)

That's true of course - though it is not necessarily an 'either/or" discussion. There's a shortage of affordable housing in some rural areas too.

But my point is you can't blame anyone wanting to live in a nice location, nor developers trying to satisfy that demand - particularly as in this case there is the lure of good rail links. Whether or not it should happen (e.g. to preserve the countryside) is a different point.

 

[yorksrob]

That's true of course - though it is not necessarily an 'either/or" discussion. There's a shortage of affordable housing in some rural areas too.

But my point is you can't blame anyone wanting to live in a nice location, nor developers trying to satisfy that demand - particularly as in this case there is the lure of good rail links. Whether or not it should happen (e.g. to preserve the countryside) is a different point.

By a similar token, you can't blame people for pre-emptively trying to save their railway station.

 

[WesternBiker]

By a similar token, you can't blame people for pre-emptively trying to save their railway station.

Quite!

 

[philthetube]

2020 Build houses because there are more people, 2023 build houses because there are more people, 2024 build houses because there are more people, 2079 oh dear now what.

 

[SynthD]

Build more because Norfolk has flooded. What does now what mean? We’ve been building homes on this island for thousands of years.

 

[AlastairFraser]

My dad was one such person back in the late 80s I have to admit. There was a (really, quite small and unobtrusive) extension to our 1979 estate planned in 1989, and he got so worked up that he decided we had to move.

This is despite living in a very beautiful area of southern England that this small extension really wouldn't have made much difference to the enjoyment of.



But if there is a housing crisis, why build in the "desirable" areas? Why not just build somewhere less pretty and attractive, though still close to London?

Building in "desirable" areas makes those places less desirable. Building somewhere which is already partly-developed, and not especially pretty, solves the crisis while preserving valuable areas of countryside.

Cynically I wonder whether it's because it gives developers more profit (as houses in rural mid Kent will fetch more than say north Kent), and some MPs and councillors are shareholders in development companies.

This is the last thing I will say before the mods nab us, but a lot of the more undesirable areas are already built on or have developments planned, meaning we need to fill in the gaps in the green belt if we want to build more in the area.