'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff

The two in Exeter are very desirable. I'd guess that most of those buying are either very good at overlooking/not worrying about their previous use, or are blissfully unaware. I think I'd struggle a little bit, to be honest.

One in my home town too. Very nicely done on the conversion plus the grounds were used for new builds. There’s also another that was once a Georgian country house but was latterly used as a psychiatric home. I was very tempted by one of the outbuilding conversions a year or so back but decided it was a bit too small and was a bit put off by the shared grounds and facilities with their service charges. The location was superb though, half an hour walk into the town centre and a bit longer to the train station but you could step out of the back garden into the Black Mountains.

I think that building at the end of the M32 is another example isn’t it?

Urban Brownfield sites are already the priority. Local authorities are spposed to maintain a register of suitable sites and they should be classed as having 'permission in principle'. Gove was introducing a plan to force a presumption in favour of Brownfield sites where Councils were falling below expected levels, I'm not sure if Labour are keeping this but would assume so but Brownfield isn't a silver bullet. This article covers some of the issues https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/318-planning-features/56577-the-brownfield-presumption-problem-solved#:~:text=Brownfield%20challenges,housebuilding%20drops%20below%20expected%20levels.

In addition, Brownfield (or previously developed land as it is properly termed) can be located in the Greenbelt. People have visions of it being former industrial sites that are demolished to make way for new housing and it often is but it can also be something that appears to be rural and 'greenfield' as the buildings have long been demolished. People also continuously conflate Greenfield and Green Belt. You can have Greenfield sites that aren't in the Green Belt and likewise not everything in the Green Belt is Greenfield.

Not really houses, but it's building shit - why is there no obligation of people doing works on the road or pavement, aka digging the road up, to leave it in the same state they found it?

I appreciate it would add some cost, but it wrecks anything that's build that's nice, to the point that it's not worth having anything nice to begin with, like this:

Furthermore, the work is usually so shoddily done that 2 years later, the pavement is usually a hazardous walk as it's so full of dips and cracks. Compound that over many years with lots of work and it's a nightmare. I've gone over on my ankle and fallen multiple times now when walking to and from the station in the dark, just because you need to really pay attention to where you put your foot on the pavement. It's ridiculous.

If you look at the narrow pavement on the left here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/D3Ji3uZRU5Zx3wc89 you can see they've dug up the pavement and filled it in badly and either side of the repair there are big gaps. If you're not looking you can put half your foot in the gap and that then rolls the ankle.

The camera doesn't quite show how uneven it is or how deep they are, but they're probably at least an inch lower than the rest of the pavement if not more.

Same here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zkgtzYKg5DFRiwTK6

You can't really see for the parked cars but it's the same here too: https://maps.app.goo.gl/KhnQfYvxboLqZ1tt6

Does the word temporary in that context have the same meaning as for pothole repairs, or do they need a permanent solution within 5 years?

See the link I posted upthread where various bosses of housebuilding companies said that Labour had a snowballs' chance in hell of meeting their target for this parliament.

I don't know what you mean.

Does that change the prediction that they will fail? That was the point I was making.

Nob in my back yard.