We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Green Belt - what's it good for?

191012141520

Comments

  • nickj_2
    nickj_2 Posts: 7,052 Forumite
    we live at a time when fuel is reasonably cheap which means we can import food from all over the world to meet the demands of the uk, at present only 70% of what we eat is produced here , so once fuel starts rising , will we be able to import the food in the quantities and at an affordable price .once you've concreted over prime farm land then there's no going back

    where i live all our water supplies come from underground aquifers, so as water falls on the land it then soaks it's way to the water table . concreting over the land gives you 2 problems with this , you are increasing the demand , whilst decreasing the ability of the land to supply .,
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    nickj wrote: »
    we live at a time when fuel is reasonably cheap which means we can import food from all over the world to meet the demands of the uk, at present only 70% of what we eat is produced here , so once fuel starts rising , will we be able to import the food in the quantities and at an affordable price .once you've concreted over prime farm land then there's no going back

    where i live all our water supplies come from underground aquifers, so as water falls on the land it then soaks it's way to the water table . concreting over the land gives you 2 problems with this , you are increasing the demand , whilst decreasing the ability of the land to supply .,

    well actually, one can knock down housing and dig up concrete.

    how much 'green field' land do you think is required to build the necessary housing bearing in mind that 80% of all new housing is on brown field site?

    where you live, would you support knocking down large old properties and replace them with high density housing?
  • POPPYOSCAR
    POPPYOSCAR Posts: 14,902 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    It is not my experience that green belt land is not accessible.

    As someone has already said many have footpaths going across it some right across fields on farms etc.

    I expect the parents of little mythical "Tarquin" would be quite happy for their green belt to be built on as it would then be worth a fortune and they could make a killing, they could then move "the pony" elsewhere!!
  • Uxb
    Uxb Posts: 1,340 Forumite
    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

    I live in the Green Belt and there are umpteen paths and tracks both footpath and bridle paths though the area.
    There is both woodland and open fields and paths though them.
    There views and benches to sit on.

    There is lots of wildlife such a foxes, roe deer(which eat my roses), and badgers (which come and dig up my lawn)

    There are a considerable number of people who come and walk, run, cycle, ride horses and walk their dogs in the area.

    Some of the paths are maintained by local volunteer groups as a substitute for exercise - that's done for free.

    .....and finally sadly there is the endless rubbish which myself and other locals pick up from those minority who come and visit but simply do not give a flying toss about sh*tting in their own back yard.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Uxb wrote: »
    I live in the Green Belt and there are umpteen paths and tracks both footpath and bridle paths though the area.
    There is both woodland and open fields and paths though them.
    There views and benches to sit on.

    There is lots of wildlife such a foxes, roe deer(which eat my roses), and badgers (which come and dig up my lawn)

    There are a considerable number of people who come and walk, run, cycle, ride horses and walk their dogs in the area.

    Some of the paths are maintained by local volunteer groups as a substitute for exercise - that's done for free.

    .....and finally sadly there is the endless rubbish which myself and other locals pick up from those minority who come and visit but simply do not give a flying toss about sh*tting in their own back yard.

    is your area typical?
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISH
    HAMISH_MCTAVISH Posts: 28,592 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 6 May 2014 at 10:04PM
    ukcarper wrote: »
    the green belt is a small part of the country .

    Yes, but it's a small part of the country specifically designed with a primary purpose to throttle the growth of cities.

    It's not a green belt, it's a green noose.

    And even many of it's original architects and supporters have now realised the way it was designed was a mistake.

    Can you really argue with any of the below?
    academics, policy groups and town planning organisations in recent years have criticised the idea and implementation of green belts in the UK.

    Greenbelt policy has been attacked as too rigid in the face of new urban and environmental challenges. Amongst other things, it has been claimed that areas of green belt can be of unremarkable environmental quality, and may not be well managed or provide the recreational opportunities originally envisaged.

    The Town and Country Planning Association, an organisation heavily involved in initiating the concept several decades previously, published a policy statement in 2002 which proposed a more flexible policy which would allow the introduction of green wedge and strategic gap policies rather than green belts, and so permit the expansion of some urban areas.

    Similarly, in October 2007, Sir Martin Doughty, then Chair of Natural England, argued for a review of green belts, saying: "The time has come for a greener green belt. We need a 21st century solution to England's housing needs which puts in place a network of green wedges, gaps and corridors, linking the natural environment and people.".

    Lewis Abbott has identified greenbelt barriers to urban expansion as one of several major protectionist political-economic barriers to housebuilding with negative effects on the supply, cost/prices, and quality of new homes.

    Abbott argues that the greenbelts actually defeat their own stated objective of saving the countryside and open spaces.

    By preventing existing towns and cities from extending normally and organically, they result in more land-extensive housing developments further out – i.e., the establishment beyond the greenbelts of new communities with lower building densities, their own built infrastructure and other facilities, and greater dependence on cars and commuting, etc.

    Meanwhile, valuable urban green space and brownfield sites best suited to industry and commerce are lost in existing conurbations as more and more new housing is crammed into them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt_(United_Kingdom)

    What is so bad about moving to 'green wedges' instead?
    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

    Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

    -- President John F. Kennedy”
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    You only have to look at areas just outside the green belt to se what would happen to the areas within the greenbelt. Where I am supposedly a string of villages and towns but now one big urban area. I agree there is scope for some building on the green belt but it needs to be carefully plan.
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Just to add looking at the green belt map near me quite a bit is already built on.
  • cells
    cells Posts: 5,246 Forumite
    nickj wrote: »
    we live at a time when fuel is reasonably cheap which means we can import food from all over the world to meet the demands of the uk, at present only 70% of what we eat is produced here , so once fuel starts rising , will we be able to import the food in the quantities and at an affordable price .once you've concreted over prime farm land then there's no going back

    where i live all our water supplies come from underground aquifers, so as water falls on the land it then soaks it's way to the water table . concreting over the land gives you 2 problems with this , you are increasing the demand , whilst decreasing the ability of the land to supply .,


    Both your points are just misconceptions and totally wrong.

    Firstly lets address the food and fuel issue.

    You say we produce 70% of the food we eat. That is close enough to being true. however this is a misleading stat because it suggests that we should be producing 100% amd that anything under that figure is dangerous or stupid. The reality is thay not all food grows in the uk..for instance bananas. If you want to reach 10% of the food eaten to be grown in the uk you have to make it illegal to eat the foods that cannot be grown here which is just silly. So growing 70% is quite good because we cannot nor do we want to achieve 100% because of what that means.

    As for the cost of the fuel to import the food (and other goods we need) it is trivial compared to the other costs. Even if fuel prices triple in real terms (virtually impossible) the cost of the fuel to import food or ipods for that matter would be trivial. For example a HGV gets aprox 7,000 miles per KG per KWh. Or to put it another way, a single brittish penny gets 1kg 1000 miles on a HGV. Ships are more than 10x as efficient per kg per mile so effectively the cost to ship a kg of food half way around the world is less than 1 penny

    its why/how the world can ship such low value goods as wheat or corn (£200-£300/tonne) half way around the world.



    as for concreting over the land resulting in aquifer problems again its a misconception nom issie. Firstly the quantity if 'concreting over' is trivial. Even in London the majority of the land is still soil. Eg gardens and oarks rovers and streams. Secondly building regs now require soakaway. That means all the water that lands on the roof or other parts must be diverted to a hollow part in the ground where it collects in times of heacy rain. It then slowly soaks into the ground iber many hours. This is even more effective than just plain soil as it stops run off jnto rivers and drains. So if anything the opposite of what you fear woild happen. The new homes built would soak more into the land and less into rivers.
  • cells
    cells Posts: 5,246 Forumite
    Uxb wrote: »
    I live in the Green Belt and there are umpteen paths and tracks both footpath and bridle paths though the area.
    There is both woodland and open fields and paths though them.
    There views and benches to sit on.

    There is lots of wildlife such a foxes, roe deer(which eat my roses), and badgers (which come and dig up my lawn)

    There are a considerable number of people who come and walk, run, cycle, ride horses and walk their dogs in the area.

    Some of the paths are maintained by local volunteer groups as a substitute for exercise - that's done for free.g

    .....and finally sadly there is the endless rubbish which myself and other locals pick up from those minority who come and visit but simply do not give a flying toss about sh*tting in their own back yard.



    Try to quantify it

    I think tbr biggest green belt is that in and around London. What proportion of Lomdoms pppulation woild you say regularly benefits (ie visits say twice a year or more) londons green belt. After all that is supposedly why it is there so londons can enjoy the countryside.

    Woild you say it is 90% of the people of London that use and benefit from that green belt? NO? What about 80%?.....70?....

    I woild put the figure at below 1% (well below 1% )
    While its impact on living costs is close to 100% of londoners


    Hell I woild wager 90% of the residents of london have NEVER EVER EVER stepped foot on London green belt let alone use it a few times a year.

    If you agree that the above is roughly true then you can hardly figjt to keep something thay benifits the less than one in a hundred to the harm ofthe 99 in a hundred
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.