There’s not enough houses! Build more houses! … but not there! Not in my back yard!
Green Belt designation is an urban containment policy to stop urban sprawl. Eventually we will chip into the Green Belt. That in itself is sustainable development. In this case there will have had to be very special circumstances or criteria fulfilled to allow its release. I am fully confident that the Inspector in this case acted in the way that planning policy, and the Green Belt designation, intends.
It is an urban **containment** tool and not a designation to inciate a site’s environmental or ecological value.
You can either have sky-high rents and horrible house prices.. or build. It’s that simple.
My gut reaction is to dismiss them as NIMBYs, but that sort usually aren’t pointing at a specific different (also green belt) postcode and saying “put them there instead”. Maybe someone more informed can tell us if the richer areas were spared because of the people who live there, rather than (for example) because the richer areas are further away from the infrastructure necessary for expansion?
If it wasn’t for immigration these last twenty years then we’d have zero population growth by now.
City of Sanctuary Sheffield has been consistent in their pro open borders voting and ideology. So it’s only fair that the people who are happy to see our population hurtling past seventy million thanks to mass migration should also be the ones to have their areas concreted over to house them.
Cotswolds next, please, Labour. Winchester, Devon and Oxfordshire too. Time to take the medicine.
This sub never fails when stuff like this is posted. All the usual comments about ‘nimbys’ and green belt mean nothing but really what does this achieve?
No fields? No greens areas for wildlife let alone people? Even less food security?
People keep saying houses to both buy and rent are too expensive yet letting developers build as and where they want all based on profits for them won’t solve any of that.
Social housing built by councils and run by councils, with no right to buy are the way forward.
Near me there are a range of potential sites for new housing developments.
3 fields have been “converted” to housing.
The site of a former school (knocked down) and a former mill (knocked down) been untouched for nearly a decade.
This is why people get annoyed with green belt building.
Much of the so-called “green belt” isn’t ancient woodland: it’s often fields treated with harmful pesticides and artificial fertilizers, leaving it largely devoid of wildlife. Well-designed developments can actually increase biodiversity.
We either need to build on some of it or rethink policies that drive demand. Even decent and productive new migrants, over a million in recent year, naturally want to start families, which adds pressure to an already stretched housing market.
I get that neighbors don’t want fields replaced with housing, and development must be fair and policy-led. Too often, wealthy areas successfully lobby to avoid impact and developers manage to escape commitments to build new infrastructure.
Meanwhile: the pro migrant crowd wants as many shitty new builds as possible
Near me they built on greenbelt land that was not just for nature but for water when it floods. Now they pushed the water elsewhere. And it floods some of a village and a a farmers field/ farm
Who cares anyways get these homes built asap!
The Labour MP isn’t on side either :
*Clive Betts, MP for Sheffield South East, called the Local Plan “wrong and unfair”.
He said: “I am incredibly disappointed the inspectors have not understood the profound impact this will have on the poorer areas of Sheffield.*
The green belt prevents sprawl, it shouldn’t prevent development. Dense urban development should be allowed where public transport links are good – meaning wherever there is a train station, tram station or metro station, you should be able to build densely in a km radius. Build more stations at 1-2 km intervals if line capacity allows, and build around them as well.
Residents shouldn’t need cars, each station should also have its own shopping area, primary school, GP, pharmacy, pub, etc.
Cant we just build apartment blocks in the cities that don’t cost north of half a million quid? Would be a nice start.
13 comments
There’s not enough houses! Build more houses! … but not there! Not in my back yard!
Green Belt designation is an urban containment policy to stop urban sprawl. Eventually we will chip into the Green Belt. That in itself is sustainable development. In this case there will have had to be very special circumstances or criteria fulfilled to allow its release. I am fully confident that the Inspector in this case acted in the way that planning policy, and the Green Belt designation, intends.
It is an urban **containment** tool and not a designation to inciate a site’s environmental or ecological value.
You can either have sky-high rents and horrible house prices.. or build. It’s that simple.
My gut reaction is to dismiss them as NIMBYs, but that sort usually aren’t pointing at a specific different (also green belt) postcode and saying “put them there instead”. Maybe someone more informed can tell us if the richer areas were spared because of the people who live there, rather than (for example) because the richer areas are further away from the infrastructure necessary for expansion?
If it wasn’t for immigration these last twenty years then we’d have zero population growth by now.
City of Sanctuary Sheffield has been consistent in their pro open borders voting and ideology. So it’s only fair that the people who are happy to see our population hurtling past seventy million thanks to mass migration should also be the ones to have their areas concreted over to house them.
Cotswolds next, please, Labour. Winchester, Devon and Oxfordshire too. Time to take the medicine.
This sub never fails when stuff like this is posted. All the usual comments about ‘nimbys’ and green belt mean nothing but really what does this achieve?
No fields? No greens areas for wildlife let alone people? Even less food security?
People keep saying houses to both buy and rent are too expensive yet letting developers build as and where they want all based on profits for them won’t solve any of that.
Social housing built by councils and run by councils, with no right to buy are the way forward.
Near me there are a range of potential sites for new housing developments.
3 fields have been “converted” to housing.
The site of a former school (knocked down) and a former mill (knocked down) been untouched for nearly a decade.
This is why people get annoyed with green belt building.
Much of the so-called “green belt” isn’t ancient woodland: it’s often fields treated with harmful pesticides and artificial fertilizers, leaving it largely devoid of wildlife. Well-designed developments can actually increase biodiversity.
We either need to build on some of it or rethink policies that drive demand. Even decent and productive new migrants, over a million in recent year, naturally want to start families, which adds pressure to an already stretched housing market.
I get that neighbors don’t want fields replaced with housing, and development must be fair and policy-led. Too often, wealthy areas successfully lobby to avoid impact and developers manage to escape commitments to build new infrastructure.
Meanwhile: the pro migrant crowd wants as many shitty new builds as possible
Near me they built on greenbelt land that was not just for nature but for water when it floods. Now they pushed the water elsewhere. And it floods some of a village and a a farmers field/ farm
Who cares anyways get these homes built asap!
The Labour MP isn’t on side either :
*Clive Betts, MP for Sheffield South East, called the Local Plan “wrong and unfair”.
He said: “I am incredibly disappointed the inspectors have not understood the profound impact this will have on the poorer areas of Sheffield.*
The green belt prevents sprawl, it shouldn’t prevent development. Dense urban development should be allowed where public transport links are good – meaning wherever there is a train station, tram station or metro station, you should be able to build densely in a km radius. Build more stations at 1-2 km intervals if line capacity allows, and build around them as well.
Residents shouldn’t need cars, each station should also have its own shopping area, primary school, GP, pharmacy, pub, etc.
Cant we just build apartment blocks in the cities that don’t cost north of half a million quid? Would be a nice start.