Green Belt - what's it good for?

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Of coarse the M25 is needed and it does run OK for a lot of the time but parts of it are regular congested and it is its ability to cope with peak traffic that is the problem. The problem is that the transport system in London and the surrounding area is not far off breaking point. I regularly travelled 25 miles into outer London and it normally took 90 mins and that was leaving early enough to avoid the absolute peak time.

Sure I can accept that more infrastructure is needed but what I dont accept is that more people and definitely not more houses results in the need for infrastructure that is unaffordable and undeliverable

London may go towards 10 million before 2030. The needed infrastructure can and should be built. That may mean another orbital road or road tunnels or something else.

cells

princeofpounds wrote: »

I'm not as sure about that as I used to be. The green belt doesn't actually do a very completely allyeting the objectives it's supposed to have. I'm not sure it's as valuable as it's made out to be.

That's not to say green space isn't valuable. But green belt might be a particularly unproductive way of preserving it.

I live within meters of greenbelt, none of it is accessible. The idea that yoy can go for a walk woth yoyr kids is completely wrong unless you happen to have a hefty pair of wire cutters for the metal fense and a machete for the overgrowth the farmer has put in place to stop trespassers like you and me

National or local parks would be a million times better for access to open green areas

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

I live within meters of greenbelt, none of it is accessible. The idea that yoy can go for a walk woth yoyr kids is completely wrong unless you happen to have a hefty pair of wire cutters for the metal fense and a machete for the overgrowth the farmer has put in place to stop trespassers like you and me

National or local parks would be a million times better for access to open green areas

There are plenty of footpaths in the greenbelt and national parks don't give you unlimited access although I agree a lot of greenbelt could be made better use of but then I'm not a horse or golf lover.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

You have no idea the value people place on the country side and it doesn't matter if it is expensive to build on brown field sites the value of those sites should reflect the cost of preparing them the way things are changing many of the factories and shopping centres will not be needed again. If the occupancy rate is falling then people will have to get use to different types of property. It's unavoidable that some green spaces will have to be used but all that can be done to avoid it should be done.

That is your view

Others hold the opposite view

what makes you think you should be able ro force your view onto others? And don't say becuase you are right cos obviously those who hold the opposite view think they are right

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

That is your view

Others hold the opposite view

what makes you think you should be able ro force your view onto others? And don't say becuase you are right cos obviously those who hold the opposite view think they are right

I'm not trying to force my views on anybody I'm just expressing them, we live in a democracy and if the majority want to concrete over the green belt it will be concreted over but I think you will find there the majority don't want that. What will have to happen will be compromises on both side you seem reluctant to accept that.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

we live in a democracy and if the majority want to concrete over the green belt it will be concreted over but I think you will find there the majority don't want that. .

Why do you insist on using emotive and misleading terms like 'concreting over the green belt'?

You would need to increase the amount of land in England that is built on from 2.3% to 2.4% in order to fix the current housing shortage.

And then to 2.5% to allow for future needs over the next few decades.

That is about as far away form 'concreting over' the country as it's possible to imagine.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why do you insist on using emotive and misleading terms like 'concreting over the green belt'?

You would need to increase the amount of land in England that is built on from 2.3% to 2.4% in order to fix the current housing shortage.

And then to 2.5% to allow for future needs over the next few decades.

That is about as far away form 'concreting over' the country as it's possible to imagine.

You keep saying that but the green belt is a small part of the country and in the areas where the property is need the amount of developed land is much greater than 2.3% and that 2.3% is actual buildings.

CLAPTON

interesting statistic

Land Use Changes
In 2009, on a provisional estimate, 80 per cent of new dwellings including conversions were built on previously-developed land, at a density of 43 dwellings per hectare. Around 2 per cent of new dwellings were built within the Green Belt and around 11 per cent of new dwellings were built in areas of high flood risk

reference

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/people-places/planning/land-use/index.html

princeofpounds

I live within meters of greenbelt, none of it is accessible. The idea that yoy can go for a walk woth yoyr kids is completely wrong unless you happen to have a hefty pair of wire cutters for the metal fense and a machete for the overgrowth the farmer has put in place to stop trespassers like you and me

National or local parks would be a million times better for access to open green areas

Exactly my experience too, thanks for sharing.

ModernSlave

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

At current rates of development, that would be hundreds of thousands of years from now!!!

For heavens sake, we've only built on around 2.3% of the UK, and use more land for golf courses and grazing horses than for housing our entire population!

Allocating just a fraction of the land currently used for little Tarquin and Henrietta to have a pony would meet British housing needs for decades.

What's more important?

Rich kids ponies or houses for people???

Who exactly are these imaginary children? What a bizarrely emotive mantra you've latched onto. What's the logic? Everyone hates rich people, so everyone must hate rich people's children's ponies as well? :rotfl:

Houses for people.

As opposed to houses for dingos playing banjos?

Not only do people need easily accessible natural undeveloped areas, we want them, whether we verbalise it or not. We evolved in the natural world and the more estranged from it we get the more we lose the essence of our humanity.

We are animals, part of the world and not above it. Just because we can crush everything under a massive boot of construction doesn't mean that is what's best for us (best for our children, including those named Tarquin and Henrietta, or best for our fellow creatures such as dogs, bees or even *shock* ponies).

We sent people to the moon. We solved mass diseases and live longer than ever before. A little thing like having a greenbelt around the greatest city in the world really shouldn't cause any furrowed brows.