FabSwingers.com forum: Green belt should be used for housing they say

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

On the inside out program now they talk about they wanna build on the green belt, but the others want it as it is, should the green belt be used for housing or keep it for its space? When we think of green belt we think of the nature and its tranquillity.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it's inevitable at some point that green belt will be used for building, however I do think this will be a shame and think that they should redevelop derelict buildings and waste areas first

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes it should. Squashing thousands upon thousands of people into existing housing areas causes more problems than it solves. I know,we're experiencing it now with overwhelmed public transport and overstretched public services. Not to mention the huge increase in traffic. Every available piece of land is being bought up and developed and it's running out. The only other solution is to build up and create high rise ghettos again. You can't have wall to wall housing without creating unrest because people are crammed together. They have bought up school playing fields,turned old pubs,hospitals and a University campus into housing estates. Soon there will only be green belt land left.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *_nny MCMan
over a year ago

Crawley

Sure I read somewhere about the huge amount of derelict buildings that could be demolished for new housing but it's cheaper to use green field sites, plus it puts houses in nicer locations, and allows developers to charge more for them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Every where used to be greenbelt.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They need somewhere to build all those free houses for all the refugees though.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think it's inevitable at some point that green belt will be used for building, however I do think this will be a shame and think that they should redevelop derelict buildings and waste areas first"

They are,but it will run out. We have a population explosion in my Borough plus development of every available piece of land. The government have funded the Riverside project,building 48,000 new homes. They are building at a rapid rate,whole estates have been going up for years,allotments within blocks of houses have been developed. Waste land by the Thames is being developed from Barking up to Rainham I think.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Brownfield sites should be used first. Developers prefer greenfield as it is easier, cheaper and more profitable.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sure I read somewhere about the huge amount of derelict buildings that could be demolished for new housing but it's cheaper to use green field sites, plus it puts houses in nicer locations, and allows developers to charge more for them."

These derelict buildings are probably in run down areas with no employment. Maybe they should be developed for refugees as a short term solution but anyone needing somewhere to set up home,find employment and work their way up the ladder so they don't have to claim help with rent won't be able to live their. I'm sure I saw a program about whole streets full of empty houses. That would never happen where I live.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

A tiny percentage of the green belt wouldn't be missed if turned over to housing.

Yes, there's plenty of buildings which could be renovated/ restored for housing but I believe this would be subject to VAT whilst new build isn't.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I guess it depends on what area of the country you are in, the main road into Bristol has some derelict buildings that would be perfect for starter flats, walkable to the city centre, the area isn't perfect but it would certainly benefit from regeneration. The buildings have been empty for years at least 20, it's a waste that nothing has been done with them.

I just hope when the time comes that they start building on green belt that they also work to improve the infrastructure and local facilities. I live in a green belt area and whilst we have the room for new houses the local schools and doctor surgeries etc don't have the capacity for an infux in population numbers

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rinking-in-laCouple
over a year ago

Bristol

"They need somewhere to build all those free houses for all the refugees though....."

Oh do be quiet

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Soon there will be no game reserves (wild animals) around the world or forest, jungles, let alone trees because we need to build.

It'd time they start promoting family planning birth control, child limits to save the planet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

"A tiny percentage of the green belt wouldn't be missed if turned over to housing.

Yes, there's plenty of buildings which could be renovated/ restored for housing but I believe this would be subject to VAT whilst new build isn't."

Plus often brownfield sites are contaminated, which further increases costs. If councils/we were serious about re-using these, they/we would part-fund clean-up costs.

Where we live the locals were up in arms about a massive new greenfield housing development, but when you look back from the opppsite side of the valley, it's size is insignificant.

I do believe we restrict housing solely to inflate the value of existing housing stock, and in this way our generation steals from our children

Mr ddc

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They need somewhere to build all those free houses for all the refugees though.....

Oh do be quiet"

I live in the city so they can build away. Maybe all the people who don't understand sarcasm could move there too. You best reserve your plot now

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"On the inside out program now they talk about they wanna build on the green belt, but the others want it as it is, should the green belt be used for housing or keep it for its space? When we think of green belt we think of the nature and its tranquillity."

I remember in my late teens early 20'a, going out round ashurst beacon seeing signs saying save our green belt. At the time I never paid too much attention, now as I get older I believe we should save the green belt.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

Precisely. It should be illegal to build on green land.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"I think it's inevitable at some point that green belt will be used for building, however I do think this will be a shame and think that they should redevelop derelict buildings and waste areas first

Precisely. It should be illegal to build on green land."

It thought it WAS illegal to build on the greenbelt.

Of course, a reduction in the amount of land available for housebuilding only increases the price of the land you CAN build on.

Fine if you don't want to buy a house. Or don't want your kids to be able to buy a house.

Or don't care.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They need somewhere to build all those free houses for all the refugees though....."

or the do do gooder's should put them up in there house!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ratty_DamselWoman
over a year ago

Greater London

Brown land should be used wisely first.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

"I think it's inevitable at some point that green belt will be used for building, however I do think this will be a shame and think that they should redevelop derelict buildings and waste areas first

Precisely. It should be illegal to build on green land.

It thought it WAS illegal to build on the greenbelt.

Of course, a reduction in the amount of land available for housebuilding only increases the price of the land you CAN build on.

Fine if you don't want to buy a house. Or don't want your kids to be able to buy a house.

Or don't care."

I didn't specify green belt. I meant ANY green field land.

But since you mention it, part of the problem is that it can cease to be illegal to build on the green belt very easily.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There's three main problems I can see

1 increasing the amount of housing would almost certainly reduce the cost of existing housing... And that would seriously concern most high St banks!

2 the c02 output for building the apparent one million new homes is ridiculously high, in fact most scientific studies have shown that we really really really shouldn't think of using more than 70% of the remaining oil reserves if we wish to keep under the 2 degree limit, this means we really should start to re-think "suburbia" and whether that's actually workable!.

3 that "green belt" isn't just pretty land that your meant to drive to on a Sunday and have picnics.... It's designed to feed and water you all!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We really need to think about lowering the population and not increasing the population!

There's no point worrying about whether you're kids will be able to afford houses, if there under water/blown away/melted...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

The Green Belt has helped to preserve much of what makes our country great and I don't see it as necessary to remove restrictions - especially as I've just offloaded a lot of green belt land at very low prices, should it be turned into residential building land.

We have tons of unused non-greenbelt land. Near to me there are several hundred yards between a small road and the closest buildings - it's grassed. It would support many homes but it's not used as recreational land, it's just an amenity. It's more important to use land like this than greenbelt.

If greenbelt were ever to be used, I'd prefer it all to be reevaluated and classified into essential greenbelt and lower priority greenbelt, with only the latter used very sparingly and with tougher planning restrictions.

Long term vacant homes should also became the property of the state, if owners won't use them, long before any greenbelt is even considered.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rinking-in-laCouple
over a year ago

Bristol

"They need somewhere to build all those free houses for all the refugees though.....

Oh do be quiet

I live in the city so they can build away. Maybe all the people who don't understand sarcasm could move there too. You best reserve your plot now

In which case you better move in next to us given your missing ours.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They need somewhere to build all those free houses for all the refugees though.....

Oh do be quiet

I live in the city so they can build away. Maybe all the people who don't understand sarcasm could move there too. You best reserve your plot now

In which case you better move in next to us given your missing ours.

Perhaps we could house share. And get bunk beds?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *elvet RopeMan
over a year ago

by the big field

I'm sure there's many In the House of Commons and house lords- not to mention old Prince Chas, who all have sprawling great estates that they'd be more than happy to hand a good chunk over fir social housing projects

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread