Well, if "that village" is made up of attractive old Cotswold stone properties, a developer sticking a load of identikit red brick abominations on the edge isn't exactly an improvement...
Of course not. Building identikit developments of this type really needs to stop, as they are to almost nobody's benefit.
However, population growth isn't stopping any time soon, and the new houses have to go somewhere. On the edge of small villages probably isn't the best place in most cases. But, for example, where you have small settlements served by railway stations with very low passenger numbers, doesn't it make sense to build something "walkable" next to it (I'm not talking about high-rise buildings, but something denser than what is usually built now) and not only provide good-quality housing but also increase passenger numbers at the station?
Although I don't necessarily agree with the political motivations, the right to buy is one of the best things to come out of the Thatcher government.
Could you explain why? As I see it, it was essentially a guarantee that - even if they were allowed to - councils would never be able to maintain the size of their housing stock without cutting funding for other services, because they were effectively legally obliged to sell houses for, in many cases, less than it would cost to build a good-quality new equivalent.
not letting councils build more houses was literally the most stupid decision (but aligned with the political values of the government).
Anyway, we won't be able to fix the housing crisis until the system is no longer rigged in favour of the large housebuilders who can build poor-quality, unattractive identikit rubbish with impunity, as local councils are effectively powerless to stop them due to mandatory government targets.
I agree with both of these points.
And don't get me started on the destruction of the strategic road network by development and "growth at all costs"...
Again, this is something that should not be blamed on the fundemental idea of development, but on poor quality development, and of course systemic under-investment in public transport and active travel infrastructure.
If you build sprawling housing estates with few local amenities, you guarantee that almost everyone there will own and use a car, often causing severe traffic congestion. If you build a development which is easy and comfortable to walk and cycle in, has local businesses which satisfy peoples' everyday needs, and is served by high-quality public transport, far fewer people will use cars.