Perth

Yes, unfortunately. I was just checking that too. Loved Notes from a Small Island.

verystormy

I bought it last week and am half way through it and am very much enjoying it.
Yes he picks some issues, though with a few I actually agree, and I am very proud Brit.
Yes, the celebs are imbeciles - as are those that follow them.
Yes, he is a bit grumpier, but I think most of us get grumpy as we get older. So, I read it in that light.

quiltman

I remember years ago , before all the motorways, we were going camping at Weston Super Mare. Looked at map (remember them?) and it seemed best way was A46 most of way. A46 signs disappeared in Coventry and spent couple of hours lost. Eventually found a newsagent who put us on the right track!

theOAP

After years of entertaining and informative books, we can now add controversial. The third rebuttal to opinions found in Little dribbling.

"We need a grownup and rational debate about the green belt. It’s a shame that Bill Bryson doesn’t contribute to it in his latest book."

And here was me, agreeing with the Bryson opinion.

Loads of comments.

Scaremongers like Bill Bryson reinforce harmful green belt myths | Housing Network | The Guardian

Shard

Which side are you on? I agree with much of what was said in the Guardian piece.

theOAP

I agree with what Bryson wrote in his book,...although I must warn you, I am extremely biased in the discussion. The bottom of my back garden borders on green belt. If Bryson is the nimby-in-chief (according to the Guardian article), then I must be one of many assistant nimby-in-chiefs.

Under newer government rules (thanks John Prescott), council financial support from the government now depends on the number of new homes the council can build. Interestingly, greenbelt land, which only a few years ago was additionally designated to be of special interest, is now up for grabs. Currently built local new 'affordable housing' developments are abysmal. Although 2 or 3 stories high, they are the tower blocks of tomorrow, waiting to be torn down.

I'm not against building on some greenbelt sites, but under the current conditions of 'rushing to build', little time is being spent on the consequences of development, and a virtual land grab by the councils (to obtain government finances) will not result in satisfying development. The developers are now in the driving seat, and profit is the motivator, not improved housing conditions. The stock market rose 1% yesterday, fuelled by increases in developers alone, after the Chancellors autumn statement regarding housing starts.

Rapid and thoughtless building on greenbelt is the start of the slow and slippery slope, and once built on, it's lost forever. The disregard for the few positives that exist today in the UK are being cast aside by the now popular motive of profit (led by the government), seems to be a theme Bryson weaves throughout his book.

Baited, and very biased luddite nimby rant over. And, more to the point, I liked the book.

meinkl

During my time living in various parts of Britain, I always preferred the rural life, even if it meant a long drive to work, and would always be on the side of maintaining the countryside as a quintessential part if British life. But any new mass housing plan should look more than just a few years ahead and analyse the real needs, rather than just the quick profits of developers and councils scrambling for government financial support. We should look further ahead and analyse exactly what employment people will have in 10 years time…. Will there be the need for people to actually commute to work? Will businesses need to be in city centres or can they relocate to small town centres or small industrial estates in semi rural areas.
When the UK eventually improves its broadband connectivity to compete with what some (supposedly 3rd world) countries already have, then maybe more people will work from home, or base their businesses in more rural surroundings, so as to escape the daily grind of rush hour travel. Thus the developments of small towns, along with the much needed support infrastructure, and sensitive developments of the villages and hamlets surrounding those towns, will see a reverse of the hundreds year old industrial revolution model of big city life?

From what i see from the outside looking in, thanks to years of decline, whether financially or politically, of the industrial and manufacturing basses within the UK, the remaining businesses could be housed near to where their employees live rather than always aiming for the big city.

People now shop online, getting their products delivered to their door, even to the extent of their groceries thanks to the likes of Tescos. People book their travel & holidays online, do their insurance & road tax and do over 50% of their email and research work online. Sometimes they don’t even need to be at home thanks to tablets and wireless broadband. That all important email can be read and answered whilst sitting at the bus stop. (In Malaysia the busses have free wifi on board.. do they in the UK?)

So surely the UK population, or should I say the UK government, should be looking at the bigger picture, investigating how, who and when we will eventually find ourselves reverting to a rural based lifestyle. If this change happens it will actually lessen the current strain on road and rail commuting infrastructure around big cities, but will require better support for rural bus and train services. Plus better quality rural housing rather than quick fix, slap-em-up, sell-em-cheap, eyesore mass housing littering the existing green belt around defunct city centres.

"Semi assistant nimby"

Shard

Well there's green belt, and there's not so green belt. Few would advocate building on AONB or even pleasant farm land, but there are plenty of non-descript locations, let alone brownfield where some development could take place. Nobody is advocating "thoughtless" development, but the absolute sclerosis brought on by nimbyism is not a solution either.

theOAP

I can only speak of my local experience. Your statement, and the crux of the Guardian article, sounds good, but in practice that's not what's happening.

Pleasant farmland, wooded areas, pleasant recreational areas, and areas designated as areas of special beauty are being targeted for development in the local plan for where I live. The reason is they all lie adjacent to the current populated areas. There is "scrubland" (as expressed in the Guardian article) but it lies beyond the adjacent areas. The cost of creating new infrastructure for adjacent developments is much less expensive than creating new infrastructure for scrubland further away, and therefore, the profits (for the developers) from building on adjacent sites, and the cost to the local council, are much improved. If scrubland in the greenbelt were the only land being considered for building, then I would agree with the Guardian article. Sadly, scrubland is the only land NOT being considered in our local plan.

Little Dribbling attempts to make the following point all through the book: the UK has valuable assets (such as attractive greenbelt land, areas of historical value, fantastic free museums, etc.) but there is a cost to maintain these positives. The government attitude is everything must be made to make a profit. Bryson argues that the attractiveness of the UK requires investment to retain its value, and the government policy (of any political party) is to get rid of anything that does not generate immediate profits.

robin1234

In my small town in North Norfolk, there've been three big new residential developments in the last few years. One (where I bought a flat) is redevelopment of a Victorian era hospital and surrounding grounds. Another is on a partially brownfield site right by the school, includes further facilities for the school and additional allotments for the town. The third simply takes a large arable field (maybe forty acres?) and creates housing on half of it, and football fields with clubhouse on the other half. This development also includes further allotments for the town. All these three developments are within easy walking distance of the town centre.

Sure, being on the edge of town means that services can be extended from town fairly easily. But they also mean that (unlike the small town where I live in New York) the town centre isn't hollowed out, accompanied by new development a couple of miles from town, leading to even more necessity of car use even by people living in town.

It is noticeable in Norfolk that there's little or no development between towns and villages, all development is concentrated right in, or on the edge of, exiting settlements. Much better than the laissez faire American pattern.

theOAP

Out of curiosity, are these flats included as housing contributing to the needs of a local plan? We have a large Victorian school nearby that has been developed privately. Additional extensions have resulted in roughly 50 flats. The price for each flat starts at £300,000 to £500,000. Hardly affordable housing, so they do not count towards contributing to the local plan.

Our council arrived at a solution for 12,800 new homes, but the government rejected it and came back with a request for another 7,000 new homes to be included. The result will pretty much link up 2 towns, with little greenbelt left.

nun

I've lived outside the UK for almost 30 years and in that time my opinion of it has gone down hill. I've become critical and pessimistic about a lot of things, but I put most of that down to just becoming and old f&rt that thinks things were always better "when I was young". Still I do believe there has been a material and philosophical decline in the UK. Britain is now a small country in every way, Thatcher has won and the mean and insular attitudes of the small shopkeeper have become the norm. The dominant value is profit and people and things that can't pay their way are too easily discarded. The result is a very unattractive country.

The most dangerous thing about the UK is that even with it's basic averageness it still thinks it's well above average. This was brought home to me when I realized that living in Massachusetts I have a better social safety net that in the UK. Bryson is documenting the decline of the UK and that is sure to annoy the people that live in the UK because they don't have the perspective to see it happening and they have increasingly parochial attitudes.

Shard

You are speaking in platitudes, and given that you haven't been living here for thirty years, not with much relevant experience. Profit is not seen as a dirty word (as it might once have been on the Left) but it is by no means the "dominant value" in society. There is a recognition in the free market, something that both Russia and China has discovered in recent years, and Cuba about to as well. No idea what "basic averageness" means; Britain is a G7 nation and a leading member of the EU28, it still attracts huge amounts of foreign investment and educates many of the world's brightest students.

I don't know much detail about Massachusetts but I wonder if everyone enjoys the better social safety net there or if it is just some (like yourself)? Even if it is more generous and comprehensive in Mass. that is not the norm across the USA.

Britain has its problems, but if anything that is because it is a victim of its own success.

scot47

Mammon will win. I have to agree with the poster known as "Nun". Bryson is right.

robin1234

Well, the development where I bought a flat includes renovation of the original building into townhouses and flats, and new build including flats, town homes, semis, detached etc. My flat was 140,000, market price. The houses were about 180,000 - 500,000. There were a fair number of social housing (subsidised?) units included, maybe 15 or 25% of the total units I think. Both the other developments now building have social housing included, and, as I mentioned, various significant contributions to local needs such as sports fields, allotments etc.