Jump to content
  • Welcome to DOSBODS


    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!


Don't buy a house on land that used to be a landfill site

Recommended Posts


As they came to remortgage, the pair have discovered that the building they purchased had not been completed in line with building regulations.

To make matters worse, the firm behind the development - Sherwood Homes - went into administration back in February. It doesn't end there either because it then emerged that all 13 homes on the new build estate are facing the same problems.

The Mirror reported that one of the main issues was that the estate backs onto what used to be a landfill site. Despite it being inactive for over four decades, the council says it still releases toxic methane gas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New builds IMO should be built on brownfield sites, just not landfill sites. There is a big difference, "brownfield" encompasses a lot of disused sites. UKGov should be looking to build only on brownfield, there is more than enough to fill the magic figure of 350k a year or whatever they think they should build.

Problem is they won't because it costs the housebuilders more to do. Luckily a lot of Britons have been brainwashed into thinking the countryside/greenfield sites are 'redundant' and have no purpose. Quite where they think their food comes from, I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason(s) for decision

1) The adverse impacts of the introduction of built form into this river valley setting and context, will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing dwellinghouses, in terms of policies contained in paragraphs 56 and 58 of the NPPF, by reason that the development will harmfully affect the character and environment of the area, to the detriment of the quality of the area, and the residential amenity of the local community, as the development will erode the established character, and appear visually intrusive. 111791/FO/2016/N1 Page 2 of 4

2) The adverse impacts upon links to open space, biodiversity, and recreation for the local community, of developing this river valley site for housing, will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing dwellinghouses, in terms of policies contained within paragraphs 73, 74, 75, 109 and 114 of the NPPF, by reason that the development will result in the loss of part of an integrated network of high quality, biodiverse, and multi-functional green infrastructure, including a recreational route and its setting.

3) The development fails to design out crime, to provide safe and accessible environments, in terms of paragraph 69 of the NPPF, by reason that the design results in a deficiency of natural surveillance to and from the street, and unrestricted access to the side and rear of the properties.

4) The Application fails to demonstrate that development can take place without relocating a public sewer, and that any mitigation measures will not unduly harm the existing open space, in terms of paragraphs 120 and 121 of the NPPF, by reason that a public sewer crosses this site, which will require an access strip, may require a diversion, and may preclude building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...