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

[redwing]

Re-draw the lines.

Simple

There's a lot to said for this approach.

The greenbelts only exist around certain cities - google for a map of them to see. They look like donuts. There effect has been to allow cities to expand up until the boundary of the donut. Once the city has got that far then continued expansion can only happen if you skip across the donut and build outside the greenbelt. This leads to dormitory communities populated with folk who need a car to traverse the greenbelt donut in order to get to work. It's frankly not very green.

Meanwhile cities are slowly losing any open or green space available. Cities and their inhabitants need their green open spaces too.

Definitely time for a rethink.

[Guest]

If we don't want population control, why not start knocking down low-density housing and replacing terraces with apartments. You don't have to build high-rise towers to significantly increase the the number of dwellings per acre.

There's loads of streets in London Zone 2 or 3 where it's just rows of pokey small two-storey houses.

The UK's housing density is extremely low when you compare with somewhere like Hong Kong or even New York.

[Errol]

If we don't want population control, why not start knocking down low-density housing and replacing terraces with apartments. You don't have to build high-rise towers to significantly increase the the number of dwellings per acre.

There's loads of streets in London Zone 2 or 3 where it's just rows of pokey small two-storey houses.

The UK's housing density is extremely low when you compare with somewhere like Hong Kong or even New York.

No issue with this, provided owners of said properties are only allowed cars if parking spaces have been provided. There should not be dumping of cars like litter on surrounding roads etc. If a car parking space doesn't come with the house, the owner should be forbidden from keeping a vehicle.

It goes without saying that if you increase density, you also need to build up the infrastructure to deal with it (schools, hospitals, roads, sewage etc).

Edited August 5, 2015 by Errol

[Riedquat]

Surprise surprise, see a few posters aghast that lots of people don't actually like more building. As long as the anti-builders are against population increase and aren't doing anything to contribute towards that then fair play to them (although years of utterly irresponsible population rises mean that unfortunately building does need to catch up even if population growth stops). Those who seem to be unable to grasp why anyone might not be keen though? I've as much respect for you as I have for the BTL brigade.

It doesn't need to go to the population control level to stop increase, more control over the borders and leaving people to actually pay for their own kids should do it.

Fail to deal with this and the choices are ever-increasing housing pressure or ever-larger (or more) towns and cities, and neither of those are something anyone in their right mind should want. The third option is the only remotely tolerable, non-depressing one.

[treadwater]

"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."

Reads: two thirds of people want to preserve the status quo, even if it means there children and grandchildren end up living in broom cupboards

There was a report from the Adam Smith Instiute early in the year stating 2.5m could be build on 2% of green belt land. The myth that there isn't much land to build on and that any encroachment on green belt land is an insult to future generations is a gross untruth forced on the public, its time it went.

[Killer Bunny]

ASI are idiots. They actually backed bank bailouts. Smith and Thatcher turning in their graves. Using HIS name!

#bringbackcapitalism #banHTB #prosecutebankgenerals #letmktsetrates Sorted. Not by creating Judge Dredd's Magalopolis for my g/kids.

[crashmonitor]

In the North there is plenty of land in urban areas, start there. We don't necessarily need to keep building flats, add a bit of quality and then may be build will buy brownfield.

There is a huge gaping hole in the middle of Nottingham between the Lace market, railway station and Sneinton. God knows why. if the council had any sense they would sanction the building of some quality houses to utilise the upgraded tram network and rail link.

[steve99]

Most people dont realise that only around 7% of the UK's land is built on, most if asked believe it is around 30-50% and they dont realise that building on just another 1.5% of the land would increase housing supply by around 50% or more and that is real housing not just dogbox flats. In Germany I believe that the figure is around 15% built on. If you ever fly over the UK and there is little cloud, you will realise how green and empty it is.

AS for population, if we could not have a fully operating economy when it was 58million and now cant do it with 63million then havent we moved into the situation of doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Just like booms and busts, it apears that this is all that politicians know and do, if they had a politicians toolbox for fixing expensive watches and cameras then it would consist of a hammer, and worse, they would not question the legitimacy of mentioned hammer.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

two thirds of the public didnt vote for the current government.

Just saying.