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

Build on the green belt

Recommended Posts

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/101109/seeing-red-over-greenbelt-plan

"In some cases these may need to fall within the green belt or on areas designated as Other Protected Open Land."

The proposals are currently under a public consultation, with residents invited to share their opinions on the plans online, in writing and in person at various consultation meetings in the borough until December 23.


The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) sets out a plan to provide housing and investment opportunities for sustainable growth over the next 20 years.

It outlines a need for an additional 227,200 new homes across Greater Manchester by 2035, including 13,700 (6 per cent of the total figure) in Oldham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally insane numbers. Sure, probably impossible to build them without building on green belt land but that just even more thoroughly emphasises what a fvcking great calamity population increase is for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what Manchester is like regarding infrastructure but in dear old London Town, buildings have been going up apace. It has got to the point where the infrastructure can no longer manage the extra capacity. Roads, school places, medical, public transport. It's on the verge of collapse. Yet still they keep building. Our local council is so desperate that there are plans to turn community centres into accommodation. Madness.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchester has better infrastructure than many places (a motorway around it, the tram network is always expanding, and the local rail network is reasonably extensive by modern local rail network standards) but it struggles badly in places. Large stretches of the M60 are jammed solid every rush hour. There are places where there's room for more infrastructure (out of the city centre area, although there are some rail improvements going on there), if that's your idea of making the place better. So maybe it could be handled, not that I expect too much effort to be put in that direction, but far, far better to not need it all in the first place. So I'll repeat (for probably the umpteen millionth time) population growith must come to an end, and soon.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

So I'll repeat (for probably the umpteen millionth time) population growith must come to an end, and soon.

Ain't gonna happen. This is ponzi economy based on unlimited immigration to keep the pathetic growth figures going. 

Since that is the case the only chance is to build. There a millions of farmers fields whiuch could support building (and line the farmers poxckets). And reduce prices by increasing supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GreenDevil said:

Ain't gonna happen. This is ponzi economy based on unlimited immigration to keep the pathetic growth figures going. 

Since that is the case the only chance is to build. There a millions of farmers fields whiuch could support building (and line the farmers poxckets). And reduce prices by increasing supply.

And thus the country continually becomes a more unpleasant place to live in (and a double whammy on the amount of food that needs to be imported). You're right that it ain't gonna happen for just that reason, that's why I'm such a miserable, depressed git who sees an ever-bleaker future.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fly over the English countryside and you will see that there is plenty of space...nothing but green to the horizon...powerful vested interests keep the plebs cooped up in a tiny fraction of the space...misery...made much worse by mass immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Wayward said:

fly over the English countryside and you will see that there is plenty of space...nothing but green to the horizon...powerful vested interests keep the plebs cooped up in a tiny fraction of the space...misery...made much worse by mass immigration.

Er, and? It doesn't need a particularly high proportion of that to be built on (i.e. less than we've already got) for it to be noticablely unpleasant. The presence of a town, city, motorway, main line railway etc. make their presence felt over a very wide area, much bigger than the amount of land they occupy. Compare with, say, France. Approximately twice the area and approximately the same population. You've got to have pretty narrow horizons not to notice it.

Flying over England is pretty depressing, seening the amount that is built on (especially obvious at night).

Agree with made much worse by mass immigration though.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, GreenDevil said:

Ain't gonna happen. This is ponzi economy based on unlimited immigration to keep the pathetic growth figures going. 

Since that is the case the only chance is to build. There a millions of farmers fields whiuch could support building (and line the farmers poxckets). And reduce prices by increasing supply.

Yep, you add another lane onto congested m25 and you encourage more drivers.....you add cost and a few cycle lanes in the city and you deter the drivers.....you can make it anyway you want it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very true. We are slaves to the system, going to work to struggle to afford to pay for a slave box, most of which are beyond the reach of ordinary slaves.

These boxes all in a crowded area, overun by foreigners who keep arriving unabated who compete for said slave boxes, thus forcing up the prices of slave boxes.

I have a friend who can work from home he has set up a niche business so he can live in the countryside, he seems to love it. That would be the answer if you could find your niche.

Edited by bear.getting.old
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096

 

and the detail.

In fact if we built on another 1% or less then population could be well housed.  Stupid to keep bringing in more though just to feather the nests of a chosen few.

ps, in Australia we have the same problem, however with almost infinite land.  Mega immigration of circa 250k pa  but land drip fed into the house building system in order to keep prices high and land bankers mega rich.

Edited by steve99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that before, it's a classic case of completely missing the point. No-one's claiming there's physically no room, I just question the eyesight (and sanity) of anyone who doesn't find it undesirable, let alone implying that it wouldn't really be noticable.

As for another 1% (a frighteningly large amount), sure, right now. But then what? How many more 1%s until it's too much? Here's a better idea, since it can't keep going up indefinitely anyway let's stop now and keep everyone happy, before the damage gets even worse. Clearing the backlog thanks to grossly irresponsible population increase up to theis point by building more is a necessary evil, but a pill that could be swallowed if that was pretty much it. When it's another percent ten years down the line though, well, screw it, along with everyone who encouraged it.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steve99 said:

Read this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18623096

 

and the detail.

In fact if we built on another 1% or less then population could be well housed.  Stupid to keep bringing in more though just to feather the nests of a chosen few.

ps, in Australia we have the same problem, however with almost infinite land.  Mega immigration of circa 250k pa  but land drip fed into the house building system in order to keep prices high and land bankers mega rich.

Absolutely.  But NIMBYs here and everywhere are still clearly struggling to grasp this.  

However, the additional land for building on is just another one of the many solutions to the housing problem.  Once the cheap credit is removed and prices start to fall, hoarding of the land and property should become less of an issue.  There are many housing problem solutions but our 1% (not you) masters will do anything they can to stop any changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much traction a party would garner by introducing population control (rather than immigration control) as a central policy - a zero sum net migration? Certainly would be harder for the SJWs to call out 'racists' on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

I wonder how much traction a party would garner by introducing population control (rather than immigration control) as a central policy - a zero sum net migration? Certainly would be harder for the SJWs to call out 'racists' on that one.

UKIP tried that about 12 years ago - it didn't work.  Saying that they could have tried harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Er, and? It doesn't need a particularly high proportion of that to be built on (i.e. less than we've already got) for it to be noticablely unpleasant. The presence of a town, city, motorway, main line railway etc. make their presence felt over a very wide area, much bigger than the amount of land they occupy. Compare with, say, France. Approximately twice the area and approximately the same population. You've got to have pretty narrow horizons not to notice it.

Flying over England is pretty depressing, seening the amount that is built on (especially obvious at night).

Agree with made much worse by mass immigration though.

I find trunk roads and dual carriageways a real downer on the edge of towns, indeed inner city areas often provide a quieter environment. The problem   we have is population creep, we are boiling frogs. 70 million in 2020 from 60 million in 2010 barely registers, 80 million in 2030 from 70 million in 2020 will barely register. We get older we don't notice, we destroy our country but get immune to the difference. Only happiness surveys showing a peak in 1976 lend a clue, now we are crowded rats fighting for resources. The Liberal Urban elite have profited from this environment, but the rest are left miserable.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bear Hug said:

Absolutely.  But NIMBYs here and everywhere are still clearly struggling to grasp this. 

I have encountered that most NIMBY types cant appreciate that about 7% urban land use is just a small minority fraction, and its taken 5000 or so years to use up even this.  If the population were to increase 16% from 60m to 70m the 7% at worst becomes 8% or so......hardly concreting our island over.

Even more provocative is asking them was there before their house was built seems to irritate them even more...but its gotta be done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, nightowl said:

I have encountered that most NIMBY types cant appreciate that about 7% urban land use is just a small minority fraction, and its taken 5000 or so years to use up even this.  If the population were to increase 16% from 60m to 70m he 7% at worst becomes 8% or so......hardly concreting our island over.

Even more provocative is asking them was there before their house was built seems to irritate them even more...but its gotta be done!

Yes and that 7% includes gardens and parks etc not just concrete.  I suspect Nimbyism at the top levels of our ownership (ie the landed gentry etc) is more about the pleasure they get from seeing lesser beings (in their view) suffer and putting us in our place. And lets face it, it is these 1%ers who have the real say-so as to high immigration and are pushing up the population with their cheap labour and cheap imported prostitute schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/12/2016 at 3:20 PM, Errol said:

STOP 90% of IMMIGRATION FIRST. AT ONCE.

WAIT 5 YEARS AND THEN ASSESS WHAT HOUSES ARE NEEDED.

Can't do that, economic growth would go from 0,1% to -2%, as you know that would look bad for the politicians.

Anyway why IS economic growth so important? 

Edited by GreenDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/12/2016 at 4:09 PM, nightowl said:

I have encountered that most NIMBY types cant appreciate that about 7% urban land use is just a small minority fraction, and its taken 5000 or so years to use up even this.  If the population were to increase 16% from 60m to 70m the 7% at worst becomes 8% or so......hardly concreting our island over.

Even more provocative is asking them was there before their house was built seems to irritate them even more...but its gotta be done!

I really can't get my head around what sort of twisted, weird perception of the world you need to have in order to view 7% as not a lot instead of a frighteningly, depressingly large amount. Like I said compare with France, double the land, same population (roughly). A very, very noticable difference indeed. As for the 5000 years, it's hardly been growing at a constant rate all that time. A quick Google has found something from the Office of National Statistics - "The number of dwellings in Great Britain increased dramatically over the last century, from 7.7 million in 1901 to 25.9 million in 2007" and "The housing stock has almost doubled since 1951" (from a report dated 2010).

As for "if the population increased..." yes, sure, it wouldn't be great but wouldn't be compeltely terrible, but then what? You'll be saying the same about the next 10 million people, then the next, then the next...? If it were a one-off, then that's it, I think you'd find a great deal less objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Britain could expand outwards into the countryside to build more new homes but will the "planners" be building self sufficient new towns or just new housing estates.  The way they do things the cores of the established towns and cities seem to take precedence regarding jobs and entertainment etc which still leaves the problem of increasingly congested transport infrastructure.  For instance will they increase the capacity of interlinking motorways or just introduce more traffic lights and zig zag lines.  What about parking - will they just make parking spaces smaller and more expensive - like their innovative housing solution. 

It just leaves more centres to compete with each other and the experience so far seems to suggest that the plans would be half baked and new areas just become even more grim and the established centres become even more congested - and grim.

Bearing in mind that the best locations for living and making a living have been decided on and established already over the centuries so whatever is now newly built on will not be in the ideal places.

What are the implications for say a New Manchester being built just up the road from the old Manchester and similarly with other towns and cities (apart from the footie).  

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a point what's been built up over the centuries is often for reasons that have now largely or entirely vanished (look at ex-mining towns for a good example of that), so it's possible that anything new is in a more ideal location than current. As for congested and grim, it could be better, sure, but it'll come as no surprise that I'd say that grim, if not congested, is impossible to avoid past a certain size. Is it possible to provide sufficient infrastructure in a large city to not have a congestion problem and it not be a grim place to be? (that's not the same as saying that it couldn't be better on both than it is).

One important thing I think is for anywhere new to not simply be a dormitory for existing centres. The more centralised you get the more traffic problems you get - would your new Manchester simply end up as a dormitory to the existing one, feeding more traffic in to it? For them to be places worth having they need to be more economically self-sufficient (which isn't the same as saying entirely so), but that runs headlong into the efficiencies of scale and centralisation.

Edited by Riedquat

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.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   59 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    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.