GYO needs your help - please vote in this official Grow Your Own poll

[HeyWayne]

I think we'd be better off encouraging schemes like this:

RiverCottage.net

than Government "enforcing" the issue.

[zazen999]

I wouldn't have thought a brownfield site would be particularly suitable for use as allotments then. All that concrete, footings, drains, etc.

To be honest, alot of brownfield sites are actually not redeveloped due to the expense of removing the contaminated soil - which is often the reason that they stand for so long undeveloped. For example; I know of loads of petrol stations - well, ex-petrol stations that just stand there for decades because the underground tanks and surrounding soil is unsuitable for re-development.

I would love to see it being mandatory for land owners to be responsible for cleaning up the rubbish they leave behind in the soil; rather than just let it languish there forever [and getting into the water table, of course]. CDM regulations now are supposed to make this happen, but we still have the problems from historical demolitions.

If a financial reward would encourage landowners to clean up their sites and make them workable again; then I'm all for it.

I notice quite a few people have voted that councils should make more allotments available; but where are they going to get the land from, esp in towns and cities? They can't magic from nowhere....

[snuffer]

Brown field sites should be redeveloped with industrial estates or housing built on them in order to take the pressure off of the 'green belt'.

I live near a town called Mansfield. The council are always quick to jump on and support any bandwagon that rolls into town promising to build all over what little green field sites are on the outskirts. This despite there being masses of unused brownfield sites in and arround the town.

[zazen999]

Brown field sites should be redeveloped with industrial estates or housing built on them in order to take the pressure off of the 'green belt'.

I live near a town called Mansfield. The council are always quick to jump on and support any bandwagon that rolls into town promising to build all over what little green field sites are on the outskirts. This despite there being masses of unused brownfield sites in and arround the town.

Know it well - totally agree; annoying isn't it.

[RedThorn]

Zazen, I agree partly with what you say, hopefully below will explain better why I chose that the councils should sort.

Now if the Government forced the councils to buy the brownfield sites and make them suitable for allotments, that's a different kettle of fish! I disagree with Landowners having to do what is the councils responsibility. I also think that the landowner has to accept some of the responsibility for cleaning up the site. So an agreed reduced price for the land as a possible solution.

[moola]

I have voted no. Private land is private. Give incentives by all means but it is up to the owners to do what they wish with their land. How would people feel if the govt turned round and said - 'your garden - use it properly or else!'. Just because someone is fortunate enough to own more land does not give anyone else any more rights to say what they must do with it.

[zazen999]

Zazen, I agree partly with what you say, hopefully below will explain better why I chose that the councils should sort.

that's ok - you're allowed to

One of my pet hates is buildings going to waste; they [the man], will leave buildings vacant for years as it is expensive to maintain and make good buildings that currently exist; whilst at the same time compulsory purchasing greenbelt land for housing.

You only have to drive into Liverpool city centre [a very good example] and look at rows after rows of houses that have stood empty for years; just because it is cheaper to buy fresh land and build on that. Completely insane!

Some joined up thinking is in order; at the top. Can't say it will ever happen though.

*steps off soapbox and makes some chammomile tea.

[SarzWix]

No, as others have said, I don't think the government should 'force' landowners to do anything. And if they do, I think they should be encouraging/incentivising the clean up of brownfield sites for housing development, first and foremost, with a clause in any planning permission to ensure that each development has either a) big enough gardens, or b) an allotment site attached.

[RedThorn]

that's ok - you're allowed to

One of my pet hates is buildings going to waste; they [the man], will leave buildings vacant for years as it is expensive to maintain and make good buildings that currently exist; whilst at the same time compulsory purchasing greenbelt land for housing.

You only have to drive into Liverpool city centre [a very good example] and look at rows after rows of houses that have stood empty for years; just because it is cheaper to buy fresh land and build on that. Completely insane!

Some joined up thinking is in order; at the top. Can't say it will ever happen though.

*steps off soapbox and makes some chammomile tea.

thanks Zazen. Oh can I have a cuppa too please?

Now that soapbox moment, I completely agree with!

[zazen999]

What they should do is to include them into Section 106; for each new development you clean up an old one

[ammi]

North Sheffield are trying to open up more unused spaces for allotments and have in the last year opened up a whole new site and are currently looking at another new site nearby (i am currently on the waiting list for this new site and was told that I was the first to apply) the only problem is that it seems to take over a year to get the sites up and open for use. South sheffield have loads of available allotments but they are all to far for me to travel.

[Chelmsleybloke]

Should the Government force landowners to offer unused brownfield sites as allotments

Not for me thanks. I don't want to grow my veg on a site that may have had all sorts of chemicals in the ground. I think local authorities should be made to provide more allotments. :-)