Sizes

[patp]

Bob Flowerdew, of gardening fame, had the right idea. Every farmer should be allowed to build a cottage on unproductive land . Each cottage would have a 1 acre plot for self sufficiency. I think by "unproductive" he meant odd shaped corners of fields etc.  I assume that the land would be surveyed and that there would be a limit to the numbers each farmer could build but it seems sensible enough to me.

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, patp said:

Bob Flowerdew, of gardening fame, had the right idea. Every farmer should be allowed to build a cottage on unproductive land . Each cottage would have a 1 acre plot for self sufficiency. I think by "unproductive" he meant odd shaped corners of fields etc.  I assume that the land would be surveyed and that there would be a limit to the numbers each farmer could build but it seems sensible enough to me.

 

 

I like the idea, but there are serious social consequences from having isolated houses in the countryside.  My late mother lived in a farm that was only about 5 miles from the nearest large town, but was a bit isolated, being set on what was almost moorland, on the side of a hill.  When she became infirm, through age, it turned out to be near-impossible for her to have care at home.  The contracted care providers weren't paid for travel time between visits, so they were really unable to either spend enough time with her on their twice daily calls, or complete all they needed to do before they had to rush off to look after someone else.  My brother worked hard to get better care, but even trying to buy it, rather than use the NHS/LA facilities proved very difficult, as all of the care providers much preferred to have clients living within an easy to access conurbation.  Add in the impact of bad weather (Cornwall tends to be wet and windy) and the disbenefits from living in an isolated home multiplied.  Even simple things, like getting someone out to repair the heating, were made significantly harder by being away from a town.

 

One reason we've opted to build in the middle of a village, that has pretty good health and social care available, is the thought of what might happen if we live long enough to need support and care at home.

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, JSHarris said:

I like the idea, but there are serious social consequences from having isolated houses in the countryside

Conversely there are greater problems of creating new ghettos.  The trouble with a ghetto is that it drops to the lowest factors of acceptability, rather than somewhere acceptable for most people.  One bad neighbour, or an absent landlord, can ruin the everyday life for a few dozen people.  That cannot happen is more dispersed housing.

There was a bit about it on the news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-49837050

[patp]

Of course we need to be sensible when we get older. Like you @JSHarris we have considered moving to where the health care etc is. Before the surprise planning permission was granted we looked long and hard at moving from the edge of a smallish village to a larger, better serviced, one. It looks like our village is now going to be so large that the services should, eventually, come to us. In an ideal world, of course, care should be easier to arrange no matter where you choose to live.

[Oz07]

18 hours ago, PeterStarck said:

The government owns several large sites, as a result of department rationalisation, which could be used for new towns. For example Fort Halstead near Sevenoaks was owned by a development company and rented by the MoD until closure. There was substantial opposition to the plans from the surrounding villages even though traffic links were good with the M25 less than a mile away. Don't know what the current situation is though.

Doing it in Rutland atm