Building on the green belt
Poll: Building on the green belt
Total Members Polled: 216
Discussion
I see Rishi Sunak is promising to stop a 'loophole' which allows developers to build on greenbelt land in certain circumstances, Apparently this is important because in the last 16 years 1% of Green belt has been built on since 2006 and at this rate it will all be concreted over by the year 3600 or so.
If developers were allowed to build homes where people actually wanted to live. Would it really mean concreting over the entire green belt? Or would it be manageable?
Total England Green belts add up to about 4 million acres, IIRC, of which about 1 million is around London.
Housing density is around 15 dwellings per acre of development land.
It's been estimated that we need about 3 million more homes over the next 10 to 20 years.
If developers were allowed to build homes where people actually wanted to live. Would it really mean concreting over the entire green belt? Or would it be manageable?
Total England Green belts add up to about 4 million acres, IIRC, of which about 1 million is around London.
Housing density is around 15 dwellings per acre of development land.
It's been estimated that we need about 3 million more homes over the next 10 to 20 years.
I voted with my feet and left the village I was brought up in (where I would have been quite happy to stay otherwise) because all it is is one huge housing estate now and yes, that included building on green belt too.
More should be done to make existing empty buildings in towns into flats IMO. High streets are dying, so put people in the buildings instead. Of if they are ugly modern concrete effigies then knock them down and put some attractive flats there instead.
More should be done to make existing empty buildings in towns into flats IMO. High streets are dying, so put people in the buildings instead. Of if they are ugly modern concrete effigies then knock them down and put some attractive flats there instead.
We need a fundamental rethink of town planning.
City centres are essentially redundant, these days, both for retail and employment purposes, so this would open up all sorts of new opportunities for urban structure and networks, if we were brave enough to take them.
There's even an argument for turning the whole lot inside out: historically, settlements developed along major rivers because we needed them for both drinking water and as transport networks. We don't any more, so it might be argued that the river valleys should be turned back to countryside (fertile soil for farming; flood plain; ecological diversity, free-flowing high speed transport arterial routes) and human habitation concentrated where it is less harmful.
Unfortunately, we're too wedded to the past in the UK, and the concept of Greenbelt is just one symptom of this.
City centres are essentially redundant, these days, both for retail and employment purposes, so this would open up all sorts of new opportunities for urban structure and networks, if we were brave enough to take them.
There's even an argument for turning the whole lot inside out: historically, settlements developed along major rivers because we needed them for both drinking water and as transport networks. We don't any more, so it might be argued that the river valleys should be turned back to countryside (fertile soil for farming; flood plain; ecological diversity, free-flowing high speed transport arterial routes) and human habitation concentrated where it is less harmful.
Unfortunately, we're too wedded to the past in the UK, and the concept of Greenbelt is just one symptom of this.
Equus said:
We need a fundamental rethink of town planning.
City centres are essentially redundant, these days, both for retail and employment purposes, so this would open up all sorts of new opportunities for urban structure and networks, if we were brave enough to take them.
There's even an argument for turning the whole lot inside out: historically, settlements developed along major rivers because we needed them for both drinking water and as transport networks. We don't any more, so it might be argued that the river valleys should be turned back to countryside (fertile soil for farming; flood plain; ecological diversity, free-flowing high speed transport arterial routes) and human habitation concentrated where it is less harmful.
Unfortunately, we're too wedded to the past in the UK, and the concept of Greenbelt is just one symptom of this.
I used to work with a director of planning at a council, who was a smart chap. He often said humans are lazy buggers, and live where the water is, which is why we got so many localised flooding issues in the valley areas.City centres are essentially redundant, these days, both for retail and employment purposes, so this would open up all sorts of new opportunities for urban structure and networks, if we were brave enough to take them.
There's even an argument for turning the whole lot inside out: historically, settlements developed along major rivers because we needed them for both drinking water and as transport networks. We don't any more, so it might be argued that the river valleys should be turned back to countryside (fertile soil for farming; flood plain; ecological diversity, free-flowing high speed transport arterial routes) and human habitation concentrated where it is less harmful.
Unfortunately, we're too wedded to the past in the UK, and the concept of Greenbelt is just one symptom of this.
Humans also like stability and tradition though.
And access to water is I think still a very important issue - especially areas like Suffolk, where there is no current ability to provide fresh water to sizewell c, yet it got permission anyway.
If fundamental issues like this are being ignored in our planning/political system, god help dealing with actual mundane issues.
Personally I would see greenbelts gone just to annoy nimbys, though I think instead of obsessing over a policy, the strategic direction needs to be there first (which is basically what equus said I think, but wafflier)
Ian
The village I live in is gradually merging with the next village along the main road. A couple of small estates, individual houses as infill between properties that have been there for 100 years, in back gardens, etc.
Meanwhile, the local market town has just announced the closure of its last bank. The proper Post Office closed a few years ago, to be replaced with a couple of counters in a convenience store. The toy shop closed a few years ago.
There's a large site at the back of the main street that used to be the town's supermarket (before Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl moved in). It's been empty for about 5 years, slowly deteriorating. Plenty of space there for a sheltered/social housing development.
I don't understand why they keep building new houses in villages that have poor transport links, no secondary schools, no GPs, no shops, and no jobs. Nearly everyone seems to be banging on about green issues and sustainability, but they keep building houses in locations that make car ownership essential.
Meanwhile, the local market town has just announced the closure of its last bank. The proper Post Office closed a few years ago, to be replaced with a couple of counters in a convenience store. The toy shop closed a few years ago.
There's a large site at the back of the main street that used to be the town's supermarket (before Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl moved in). It's been empty for about 5 years, slowly deteriorating. Plenty of space there for a sheltered/social housing development.
I don't understand why they keep building new houses in villages that have poor transport links, no secondary schools, no GPs, no shops, and no jobs. Nearly everyone seems to be banging on about green issues and sustainability, but they keep building houses in locations that make car ownership essential.
People bang on about green land, once it’s gone, destroying our countryside etc. when the reality is that most of it is totally off limits to anyone and is an industrial landscape. Farm land is not particularly precious or environmentally valuable. It’s crazy that all we are trying to protect is something for some people to look at. The cost being people having decent homes. There simply isn’t the brownfield land usable as some claim. It’s either uninhabitable due to industrial pollution, in the wrong place or too small to use.
Electro1980 said:
People bang on about green land, once it’s gone, destroying our countryside etc. when the reality is that most of it is totally off limits to anyone and is an industrial landscape. Farm land is not particularly precious or environmentally valuable. It’s crazy that all we are trying to protect is something for some people to look at. The cost being people having decent homes. There simply isn’t the brownfield land usable as some claim. It’s either uninhabitable due to industrial pollution, in the wrong place or too small to use.
There are plenty of brownfield sites, just search for brownfield sites for sale. Very few of them are contaminated, or can’t be decontaminated.People can have decent homes, they just don’t have to be built on greenfield.
andyeds1234 said:
Once green space is gone, it’s gone forever.
There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
Wat?There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
They should be putting brownfield back to green, then building very sensitively on green… or ideally ‘new towns’
The current setup is the worst of all worlds.
Mr Whippy said:
andyeds1234 said:
Once green space is gone, it’s gone forever.
There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
Wat?There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
They should be putting brownfield back to green, then building very sensitively on green… or ideally ‘new towns’
The current setup is the worst of all worlds.
andyeds1234 said:
Mr Whippy said:
andyeds1234 said:
Once green space is gone, it’s gone forever.
There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
Wat?There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
They should be putting brownfield back to green, then building very sensitively on green… or ideally ‘new towns’
The current setup is the worst of all worlds.
Lower population density, not increase it.
Room for nature and room to diffuse the impact of human activity.
Go out to rural Wales or Cambridgeshire or anywhere rural… there is absolutely LOADS of land where we can build a utopia.
Mr Whippy said:
andyeds1234 said:
Mr Whippy said:
andyeds1234 said:
Once green space is gone, it’s gone forever.
There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
Wat?There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
They should be putting brownfield back to green, then building very sensitively on green… or ideally ‘new towns’
The current setup is the worst of all worlds.
Lower population density, not increase it.
Room for nature and room to diffuse the impact of human activity.
Go out to rural Wales or Cambridgeshire or anywhere rural… there is absolutely LOADS of land where we can build a utopia.
There are also areas with streets of empty houses, but people simply don’t want to move away from their places of birth, to an area with low job prospects.
Edited by andyeds1234 on Saturday 30th July 20:07
Jambo85 said:
Electro1980 said:
Farm land is not particularly precious or environmentally valuable.
Wow!Agree with the above re soil quality. Yes, you could go down the organic route, but look what just happened in Sri Lanka - fertilizer imports banned = yield pretty much halved.
I live in rural SE England. Things have got so bad due to NIMBYs, my kids don't stand a chance of getting their own place anytime soon. Some would advocate sending them oop North to live where there are apparently thousands of empty homes to go around.
But they don't want to move as they were raised here, have jobs locally & want to be near friends & family.
The planning system is utterly broken.
I live in rural SE England. Things have got so bad due to NIMBYs, my kids don't stand a chance of getting their own place anytime soon. Some would advocate sending them oop North to live where there are apparently thousands of empty homes to go around.
But they don't want to move as they were raised here, have jobs locally & want to be near friends & family.
The planning system is utterly broken.
Mr Whippy said:
Go out to rural Wales or Cambridgeshire or anywhere rural… there is absolutely LOADS of land where we can build a utopia.
I refuse to believe utopia will exist west of the Loughor.andyeds1234 said:
Once green space is gone, it’s gone forever.
There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
Just isn't true. Farmers reach for a similar line when they oppose tree planting, saying the land can not return to agricultural land.There are also plenty of brownfield sites that can be used first.
Which conveniently ignores the fact most deforestation, both contemporary and historically has been for agricultural land use...
Also, come to Wales. We've loads of brownfield industrial sites from coal and quarrying industries that are now parkland and farming.
We've also many that need returning to use too.
Edited by Evanivitch on Sunday 31st July 09:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff