Houses or greenbelt?

Blackpool_Saver

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You're on a hiding to nothing on that one in this neck of the woods.

Mrs LM has spent the afternoon parading a horse in front of our local Sainsbury's for charity. Without the horse, well pony actually, hardly anything would have been raised.

I'm all for new houses, but not in "Horse Country", where well-off people live.

On a nice summer's day, you can wander freely through Epping Forest, ending up at "The Owl" for a nice pint, sitting outside. It is generally silent save for the frequent "clip clop" of Tarquin and Henrietta as they walk astride their ponies along the road outside, followed by their mother, Samantha, on her large grey.....

The only interruption might be the taking off of a police helicopter just over the road, but you can put up with this knowing that in all likelihood, they are helping to pounce upon some miscreant from Romford who has stolen a car and is speeding up the M11......

How could you possibly encourage the alternative of sitting in the same pub, listening to the noise of rusty 18 year old Skodas from the nearby "affordable housing estate" as they screech to a halt to bring in their 4 ultra-loud misbehaved kids into the pub, who can do nothing but run around screeching at the top of their voices, while their parents simply compare tattoos, stuff themselves with burgers, and glance at the cutlary, the use of which has always confounded them....

This would simply be an abomination and severe abuse of planning laws which are there to protect rich people. We are only where we are because idiot politicians chose to demolish every "Nelson Mandella Towers" in the country instead of giving them a lick of paint and stuffing them full of HB claimants.

Build upwards not outwards I say.

Leave innocent horses alone to graze in the lush paddocks of rural England, to listen only to the neighing of their companions, and the baa-ing of the nearby sheep and moo-ing of the cows. Build the 'affordable homes' 15 miles away and if, in any way, the residents wish to appreciate the greenbelt, then let them get Wonga loans and buy a telescope and study it from the 14th floor 15 miles away. Or watch 'Countryfile' on their super-50" HD Televisions in every room......

The what lary?

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4851098

I voted houses were more important, but interestingly over 62% chose greenbelt.

Guess that's a consideration of housing development and the likely ongoing shortage of sufficient property.

Loughton_Monkey

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

The what lary?

Americans can't use cutlary either.

mayonnaise

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I voted houses were more important, but interestingly over 62% chose greenbelt.

Because it's not an either/or question.
We can build the extra capacity needed without touching any greenbelt.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mayonnaise wrote: »

Because it's not an either/or question.
We can build the extra capacity needed without touching any greenbelt.

Really?

You think there's enough room for 6,000,000 more houses on brownfield sites over the next 20 years?

mayonnaise

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Really?

You think there's enough room for 6,000,000 more houses on brownfield sites over the next 20 years?

No, obviously, there isn't enough room on brownfield sites.

Still, we can build the extra capacity needed without touching any greenbelt.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Really?

You think there's enough room for 6,000,000 more houses on brownfield sites over the next 20 years?

You can if you build up the way.
Manila has a density of 111,000 per square mile, so we only need 585 square miles.
Given that the UK has 94,000 square miles, we could leave much of the greenbelt alone.

The question is, do people want to live in a densely populated environment?

Jim_B_3

mayonnaise wrote: »

Still, we can build the extra capacity needed without touching any greenbelt.

We certainly can. The UK is about 7% officially "urban", and about 2.3% actually built on. We've got more woodland today than since records began almost a century ago. We've got heaps of space to build on.

ukcarper

Jim_B wrote: »

We certainly can. The UK is about 7% officially "urban", and about 2.3% actually built on. We've got more woodland today than since records began almost a century ago. We've got heaps of space to build on.

It's 10% for England and probably much higher for London and surrounding counties.

macaque_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

but interestingly over 62% chose greenbelt.

The answer to this can be found here:

Of the 23.4 million homes (or households) in England and Wales on census day in March 2011, 15 million (64 per cent) were owner occupied

There is a 2% difference but I believe the home ownership %age has fallen slightly since 2011.


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-on-housing-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-detailed-characteristics.html