Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
subspace

Two-thirds Of Public Against Building On Britain's Green Belt Land

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/03/uk-green-belt-land-survey-countryside-housing

Almost two-thirds of people think the green belt should not be built on, according to a survey conducted as protected land faces rising pressure from housing developments.

The poll on the 60th anniversary of the policy to protect land and countryside around towns and cities from development found that 64% believed existing green belt land in England should be retained and not built on while just 17% disagreed.

I like this part:

The focus should be on suitable brownfield sites, according to the CPRE, which estimates that a least a million homes could be built on such land.

So that's about four years worth of housing supply at current population growth levels. Then where are the homes going to be built?

Edited by subspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the green belt? :D

It's just a matter of time isn't it? I mean if you go to Britain in the year 3,000 will we all be living in the same houses 20 to a room? What are they waiting for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to say that it's not just the current population growth levels (last year the UK population apparently grew by about 800,000 but had apparently averaged about 500,000 a year for quite a few years) if the annual immigrant number is maintained then they will tend to want different accommodation in different places to those people who are leaving the country, dying etc etc.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Support was strong among a range of groups, including people with young families, private renters, council tenants and across different income brackets.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guardian should have a vote on the alternatives (if any thought has actually been given to them apart from some years of brownfield site building) and see how that turns out.

10/20 in a 2 bed flat, more shanty towns etc.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is important is that if we are not going to build on the green belt (mainly because of the views of people inside the greenbelt), people need to be taxed on the development value of the land they have monopolized...the negative externalities of their intransigence must be costed.

For example, the burden these flats put on land inside the greenbelt is negligible

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-45330955.html?showcase=true

Yet each pay band G council tax...according to elmbridge council, thats £2731 per flat. I think there are 24 flats in the block, so total revenue of £65,544 in aggregate.

Meanwhile, this http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=34587297&sale=46306862&country=englandon the same road, monopolises more green belt land, and, as band H, only pays £3277, not £65544 (in reality, should probably pay twice that, the plot looks twice as large as the block of flats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet that most people also want far fewer people in the country.

In 1997 there were about 58 million people in the UK. By now there's more than 5 million extra people to find houses for - something like a 10% rise in twenty years.

If we had a stable population, we wouldn't need to sacrifice the green belt for housing. Politicians have been very keen on demographic change in order to deal with the pensions problem, but have been rather less proactive when it comes to providing the necessary infrastructure for the extra people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet that most people also want far fewer people in the country.

In 1997 there were about 58 million people in the UK. By now there's more than 5 million extra people to find houses for - something like a 10% rise in twenty years.

If we had a stable population, we wouldn't need to sacrifice the green belt for housing. Politicians have been very keen on demographic change in order to deal with the pensions problem, but have been rather less proactive when it comes to providing the necessary infrastructure for the extra people.

Yep....but when your economy has been turned into a ponzi scheme, it needs more blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, building NEVER ANYWHERE brought down prices. All it does is enrich landlords, developers, EAs, politicians etc

It creates slave boxes for everyone else and leaves the next generations with a Judge Dredd future

#bringbackcapitalism #banHTB #letmktsetrates #prosecutebankgenerals Sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet that most people also want far fewer people in the country.

In 1997 there were about 58 million people in the UK. By now there's more than 5 million extra people to find houses for - something like a 10% rise in twenty years.

If we had a stable population, we wouldn't need to sacrifice the green belt for housing. Politicians have been very keen on demographic change in order to deal with the pensions problem, but have been rather less proactive when it comes to providing the necessary infrastructure for the extra people.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big difference between asking ‘ do you want to preserve rural England and the beauty of the country side’ and ‘do you want your children to have homes’

Vested interest survey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except in the US, spain, Ireland to pick a few at random ...

And... Once again, crashes only happened when easy lending taps turned off. Where prices didn't crash lending taps turned on full blast. Obviously!

How is it even possible HPCers don't know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless purchased land is actually built on then planning permission is meaningless whether it be on greenbelt,brownbelt or any belt. All that will happen if greenbelt land is released for housing will be that developers will increase their land banks and only build when they can maximise returns on investment. What is required is for government to take responsibility away from market forces and build enough houses but that cannot happen if building more houses causes the ponzi economy to implode before the ponzi economy is replaced with a non ponzi economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I seem to be hearing from much of the public over the last decade is:

- We don't want to build on the green belt

- We don't want to build new towns

- We want to keep a centralised system that continues to invest in London

Seriously? Somethings got to give before everyone is living three people to a chest of drawers.

According to this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9708387/Interactive-map-Englands-green-belt.html

Green belt is 13% of land in England. Not that much. I don't care if they don't build on it but build something remotely decent quality somewher, instead of chopping up the existing buildings ad infinitum and squeezing hutches into every last nook.

One of the very few good ideas to come from the Labour govt was the new town proposals. Someone needs to revisit it with a smarter plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got doorstepped by a local nimby last night with the latest petition about building anything.

Me - I don't want to sign

Nimby - Sorry ?

Me - I don't want to sign

Nimby - but everyone has signed

Me - well I won't be

Nimby - Why not

Me - Because I think it is a useless rubbish bit of field that could support a few nice homes.

Nimby's mouth worked overtime like a fish out of the tank. Stood there for 30 seconds. He couldn't think of anything to add so he just walked off.

I am only posting this as evidence in case, a la Midsommer Murders, I suffer some terrible candy floss related death at the village fete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   94 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.