Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
iamnumerate

Build on the greenbelt says MP

Recommended Posts

http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/labour-party/at-last-a-brave-labour-mp/

Quote

Siobhain McDonagh, Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, is running a brave campaign to build homes on the non-green parts of the often poorly-named Green Belt.  At a Westminster meeting in Tuesday, she risked the ire of the Labour whips by sneaking out of one of the votes on the Lords;’ amendments to the Brexit Bill to make the case for more homes.

She urged her audience not to prioritize public housing, social housing, shared housing, private housing, or any other type of housing.  What is needed, she said, is MORE housing.  She showed pictures of land in her constituency denied planning permission for new housing because it is within the “green” belt. The pictures showed not rolling fields and meadows, but abandoned factories and disused car parks, rotting eyesores that are sacrosanct because they are “green.”

What she says underlines the case that several commentators have made to reclassify land within the Green Belt so that the parts we think of as green – meadows and woods – are labelled as such, and the non-green parts are identified for what they are.  She quoted figures to show that building homes on such land within 10 minutes of a station could see 1m new homes built without significant environmental degradation.

She outlined cases of her constituents forced to live in low-quality “temporary” accommodation because the rules prevent new homes being built to house them properly.

This is an easy no-brainer. It is doubtful that NIMBYs will chain themselves to the railings of abandoned factories warehouses to thwart new house-building.  It’s a win-win for tomorrow’s would-be home-owners.  Her campaign deserves support; and the time to build is now.

Seems strange that an abandoned factory cannot be built on because it is green, is it true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have no price control, imagine construction of homes being built then sold off at over inflated values, while councils are give an eighth of the quota under social housing. 

The true answer is raising the interest rates to return this country the values and customes preaent 20 years ago, when saving for an idea or a dream was the norm. Now people are stuck in debt with no backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the green belt is gone, its gone. They still aren't addressing the problem. 

Immigration needs to be cut by 90%, then wait a few years, then calculate what the housing need is. If we keep on letting in 300,000 people every year there will be no end to building so 'build on the green belt' is not a sensible solution.

And that's without getting into the 'ecological apocalypse' issues which we are facing. Wildlife is being systematically wiped out nationwide - it needs larger, more wild spaces, not smaller piece-meal parks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh but it's the thin end of the wedge. What about local infrastructure and added road users.

 

(Being ironical)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Errol said:

Once the green belt is gone, its gone. They still aren't addressing the problem. 

Immigration needs to be cut by 90%, then wait a few years, then calculate what the housing need is. If we keep on letting in 300,000 people every year there will be no end to building so 'build on the green belt' is not a sensible solution.

And that's without getting into the 'ecological apocalypse' issues which we are facing. Wildlife is being systematically wiped out nationwide - it needs larger, more wild spaces, not smaller piece-meal parks. 

Dramatically reducing immigration is necessary but insufficient. It doesn't solve the problem of the millions of Balts and Elbonians who are already here! Their unwelcome presence is arguably the greatest single factor in the housing crisis. And realistically, the option to send a sizeable fraction of them home to Warsaw and Bucharest is never going to be on the table. We have to build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending as many as possible back seems to me to be an eminently sensible and workable solution.

Its just that no politicians have the guts to do it (or even begin discussing it).

Edited by Errol

Share this post


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

Dramatically reducing immigration is necessary but insufficient. It doesn't solve the problem of the millions of Balts and Elbonians who are already here! Their unwelcome presence is arguably the greatest single factor in the housing crisis. And realistically, the option to send a sizeable fraction of them home to Warsaw and Bucharest is never going to be on the table. We have to build.

I could just about stomach a temporary building splurge as a necessary evil as long as it was going to be pretty much it, save for a bit due to old properties falling down and needing replacement and slow internal population shifts. But it has to come with that massive reduction in demand to be at all tolerable. No "since we're not going to do the responsible thing it's up to you to just accept continuing to p1ss all over the country." And real very long term go needs to be a managed population decline. But anyone who refuses to address the initial issue and promotes more building is utter scum trying to encourage immense damage to the country without apparently even being capable of caring and appreciating it, and there's already been far too much of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, they can do some building if immigration is cut by 90%. The two things go hand in hand.

What they can't do is continue to build, fill the country with rubbish houses and at the same time continue to let in 300,000 people every year.

Otherwise, in 100 years time, the country will look the third world. Or worse.

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the debate the OP is engaging around Brown Field within Green Belt is classified as green, turn into your rant about immigration that you have been doing on too many subjects already?

Edited by Freki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Freki said:

How can the debate the OP is engaging around Brown Field within Green Belt is classified as green, turned into your rant about immigration that you have been doing on too many subjects already?

Immigration is a very significant contributor towards population growth in the UK. To properly understand a problem and the appropriate course of action you need to understand the underlying cause, otherwise at best you're just treating the symptoms.

Share this post


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

Immigration is a very significant contributor towards population growth in the UK. To properly understand a problem and the appropriate course of action you need to understand the underlying cause, otherwise at best you're just treating the symptoms.

And contributors here have times and times again pointed the fact that many things are at play: low interest rates, government props, taxation on transaction (one of my favourite), planning permission (the one discussed here).

But your mono dimensional mind seems to get to its limits when it encounters the word immigration

Edited by Freki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Immigration is a very significant contributor towards population growth in the UK. To properly understand a problem and the appropriate course of action you need to understand the underlying cause, otherwise at best you're just treating the symptoms.

Fine, but what about all the Brits that live overseas who do not live in their houses, they rent them out, and all the property owned by people that don't live here?😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Errol said:

Agree, they can do some building if immigration is cut by 90%. The two things go hand in hand.

What they can't do is continue to build, fill the country with rubbish houses and at the same time continue to let in 300,000 people every year.

Otherwise, in 100 years time, the country will look the third world. Or worse.

The Tories will never intentionally bring the numbers down. Globalisation is an article of faith for them.

In fact a new Start Up visa for tech savvy migrants has been announced this very evening, intended to signal a 'more compassionate' approach to immigration.

Bastards.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6513885/theresa-may-tech-start-up-visa-plans-brexit/

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


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

Sending as many as possible back seems to me to be an eminently sensible and workable solution.

Its just that no politicians have the guts to do it (or even begin discussing it).

We don't need to send people back, just not give them housing benefit anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Freki said:

And contributors here have times and times again pointed the fact that many things are at play: low interest rates, government props, taxation on transaction (one of my favourite), planning permission (the one discussed here).

But your mono dimensional mind seems to get to its limits when it encounters the word immigration

Simple, do you want a green belt or do you want 300K+ new people into the UK every year?

The governbankment want the migrants because 300K new bums on seats = economic growth (even if it is a paltry 0.5% or whatever)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Errol said:

Once the green belt is gone, its gone. They still aren't addressing the problem. 

Immigration needs to be cut by 90%, then wait a few years, then calculate what the housing need is. If we keep on letting in 300,000 people every year there will be no end to building so 'build on the green belt' is not a sensible solution.

And that's without getting into the 'ecological apocalypse' issues which we are facing. Wildlife is being systematically wiped out nationwide - it needs larger, more wild spaces, not smaller piece-meal parks. 

I shouldn't think anyone is talking about building in the wild spaces, good grief, there would be blood in the lanes! Isn't it more that there's plenty of space in the green belt that isn't green at all. Wildlife IS being wiped out and the vast fields of monoculture covered in all kinds of pesticides and herbicides are playing a big roll in that - we need a good balance of the small things that are at the bottom of the food chain and a good variety of plantlife for them to live in. Properly designed housing and gardens are a haven for wildlife by comparison. That's a thing in itself - as things are, the big builders would be given the land and they'd throw up the usual crap but that's another question...

There's also the impact of people having to drive through the green belt to get home. That might seem like a rather obscure reason but if you've taken a walk in the green belt recently you'll know that the volume and speed of traffic is now extreme. Also carnage for wildlife, btw, but there's also the air quality to consider. It would be far better if a good proportion of people were only driving to and from the green belt every day, rather than right the way through it.

Nobody wants to build housing estates along e.g. the ridgeway but there should be more development in the green belt. Local authorities can develop within the greenbelt but my understanding is that they face massive objections if they try to get the status removed. It's nimbyism - of course plenty of normal people live in the green belt but there are also plenty of people who've paid squillions for their hises and they don't want the view that they believe they've purchased to be ruined by oiks like us moving in.

BTW much as I like the JC I'm a big ole green party supporter, I really do care about the environment very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
18 hours ago, winkie said:

Urban sprawl......nice.

Why is this country bottom right hand side heavy?......;)

Agreed, about time we started to over populate Scotland.  You cannot get a bigger contrast than between south East England and North West Scotland, some roads up there have grass in the centre and I have driven 80 odd miles without seeing a car up there 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, inbruges said:

Agreed, about time we started to over populate Scotland.  You cannot get a bigger contrast than between south East England and North West Scotland, some roads up there have grass in the centre and I have driven 80 odd miles without seeing a car up there 

Good idea tricky to do.  People with jobs won't want to move there (no jobs) and the idea that people who don't work, like pro single parents be asked to move is almost blasphemy to some people.  You have got as much chance of persuading the EU of making Nigel Farrage president for life than suggesting that those who don't work in London move.

Share this post


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

And contributors here have times and times again pointed the fact that many things are at play: low interest rates, government props, taxation on transaction (one of my favourite), planning permission (the one discussed here).

But your mono dimensional mind seems to get to its limits when it encounters the word immigration

No, I've said plenty of times that those are real, big problems too, and I'd also they've also had a much bigger effect in the short term. But more people means more houses are needed, you can't get away from that or dodge the question with third-rate attempts at insulting people ("mono dimensional mind"). I've said numerous times that it's actually population growth I have an issue with, immigration just happens to be the most significant contributor to it here and now. Ignoring the elephant in the room and having a go at people who keep pointing it out won't make it go away.

If you're talking about building you're accepting an increased actual requirement for houses. Why is there an increased requirement for houses?* Talk about planning is talk about treating the symptoms and not the disease.

* more people living on their own is also an important factor.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


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

How can the debate the OP is engaging around Brown Field within Green Belt is classified as green, turn into your rant about immigration that you have been doing on too many subjects already?

The thought police have arrived......

Share this post


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

How can the debate the OP is engaging around Brown Field within Green Belt is classified as green, turn into your rant about immigration that you have been doing on too many subjects already?

In my view you can't discuss building requirements without discussing immigration. The two things go hand in hand. We won't know the requirement until we have dealt with the immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Sajid David set to relax immigration rules.

Isn't this just a ruse to allow business to access skilled workers at much cheaper rates, thereby undercutting the indigenous population and keeping wages low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Sajid David set to relax immigration rules.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5842633/Doctors-nurses-outside-EU-given-visas-boost-NHS.html

More migrant healthcare workers required to treat the explosive demand for healthcare caused by uncontrolled immigration.

Indeed. They are still not actually dealing with the cause of the problems. If they carry on in this manner, the country will be destroyed in less than 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.