Why Do We Need To Build On Green Belt Land?

[youngmafbog]

What is wrong with forcing development of Brownfield sites?  Firstly of course if they reduced the rediculous cost of skips/disposal then that might help but failing that compulsary purchase unused properties and sell them on with a mandate to rebuild/renovate.

This would make far more sense than building on green belt often near villages that have no services like buses, schools, doctors etc and no infrastructure to cope with increased traffic and sewage.

And ban building on flood plains - they are there for a reason!

Rant over, no link its related to the Kings speech if you really dont know.

[sandyRoe]

My first thought was brownfield sites would be unattractive, but London docklands developments showed that to be wrong.

[youngmafbog]

Yes, but we need houses for normal people,  Canary Wharf is not for normal people although I see no reason why it cant be made so.

I'm thinking more of industrial areas left or shops.  Tear them down or refurb them to make decent affordable housing. 

 

[youngmafbog]

Oh, and ban Airbnb in residential areas.  Make them required to have a licence.

[ladybirder]

Building on Green Belt land could start the ruination of our beautiful much loved countryside, in fact the whole country imo.

[jackthehat]

Greenbelt Land needs to be properly defined, for starters.

No-one is suggesting building on AONB but some land designated as Greenbelt seems to have been so quite arbitrarily.

Re-using brownfield is certianly the way to go but the entire Planning System needs to be sorted out.

Creating 3 new flats out of 1 former guesthouse now means that the applicant will need to buy 9 trees (Biodiversity net gains, etc. legislation). And not just any tree, but ones that cost £ 1000 each.

[barry1010]

The cost of decontaminating brownfield sites can be prohibitive but I am all for regenerating those areas and protecting green sites 

[jackthehat]

There is certainly a sufficient stock of empty buildings in towns and villages. These should be repurposed for housing before Persimmon/David Wilson, and all the other housing behemoths start munching their ways through the British countryside with their shoddy executive/starter homes.

[Old_Geezer]

I thought grey was the new brown !

 

I must be green 🤢

[youngmafbog]

//The cost of decontaminating brownfield sites can be prohibitive//

Yes but as a whole that doesnt apply.  And if it did then compulsory purchase and offer assistance to the purchaser to decontam it rather than letting it sit there rotting and potentially leaching into the environment.

There will always be odd little things that make it no feasible but often there are ways to get round it.  Lets sort out what we have before piling into the countryside.

[davebro3]

Thing is lots of folks like to live in or near nice countryside🙄

They are building 1000s of new houses around here but I don't know how folks afford them. The basic 2/3 bed semis start around £250k going up to £500k for the detached ones. And bungalows are like hen's teeth!

[douglas9401]

Greed is still good.

[barry1010]

Doesn't 'brownfield' mean the land is contaminated by previous industrial use?

A large plot of land near me took over 15 years to sell because of the cost of decontaminating it. It's a housing estate now

[douglas9401]

Our wee town had a foundry and a tractor factory  now we shave a Morrison's and a soulless sprawling tightly packed housing estate with one wee school and no shops or recreational facilities although both were promised but somebody 'slipped up.

New cars, extensions to councillors homes and trebles all round though.

[Gromit]

It was this issue that prevented me voting Labour a fortnight ago. There is a plan locally to build 5000 houses on the green belt in my town. The local Labour council are in favour, and now it is Government policy, so is going to happen.

[naomi24]

Levelling down.  

[andy-hughes]

Two doors away from me was the oldest meadow in our city.

We fought for eight years to stop development - the meadow is a flood plane and a wildlife spot, there are no available school or GP places near, and the bus stop for the dreadful local service is nearly half a mile away from the nearest plot.

Our -and the local council's - objections were over-ruled by a planning inspector who visited from London, did not visit the site, and ticked the application.

The government is in thrall to millionaire housebuilding companies, and the notion of suitability of sites, or the damage to local populations is simply ignored.

The 'relaxation' of planning rules will simply accelerate situations like this - the people are ignored, money talks.

[barry1010]

Building a large housing estate on a fields near me has resulted in badgers encroaching in to gardens (always a worry as they can be very destructive and are protected), caused very tall trees to become unstable in the woods at the end of my garden and digging up old graves in a nearby churchyard.

[youngmafbog]

Barry, here is the UK definition:

https://www.cpre.org.uk/explainer/an-introduction-to-brownfield/

 

[Gromit]

I am happy with simplying the rules and getting more houses built.      
I am not happy with ignoring local knowledge and building too many houses in unsuitable places.    
The local councils want the council tax revenues on thousands of new properties, but are oblivious to lack of amenities and local roads not being able go cope with all the extra traffic.

[brainiac]

And why do we need all these houses to be built on brown or greenfield or any other colour sites?

An increase in the population of 6 million in the past 14 years.