Green Belt - what's it good for?

chucky

cells wrote: »

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

That's very twisted logic.

It does not harm 99 out of a 100.

cells

chucky wrote: »

That's very twisted logic.

It does norestrictive put of alower of

Obviously the trees or the grass doesn't harm

the circa million or so jobs and £50B a year or so in revenue that dont exist because of such restrictive planning is a harm to everyone even if you live far away from any green belt land.

certainly the reason that its there so as londoners can enjoy the countryside is the twised logic if well over 90% have neber and will neber benifit from it

chucky

cells wrote: »

Obviously the trees or the grass doesn't harm

the circa million or so jobs and £50B a year or so in revenue that dont exist because of such restrictive planning is a harm to everyone even if you live far away from any green belt land.

certainly the reason that its there so as londoners can enjoy the countryside is the twised logic if well over 90% have neber and will neber benifit from it

Can you repeat that in English please? Google translate cannot recognise your language.

cells

chucky wrote: »

Can you repeat that in English please? Google translate cannot recognise your language.

Restrictive planning permission, of which the green belt is part, results in some 250k fewer homes per year in the UK.

If our system was closer to the French system, the 250k extra home built per year would result in around £50B more in revenue and some 1 million more jobs.

Not only would a million families be better off as they are now employed but also everyone else in the form of lower taxes or higher social spending as the government pockets a good chunk of that additional £50B a year.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

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

You miss the main point of the green belt it is to prevent all the towns and villages surrounding London from merging into one. People might not walk in the green but a lot appreciate it.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

You miss the main point of the green belt it is to prevent all the towns and villages surrounding London from merging into one. People might not walk in the green but a lot appreciate it.

a lot of people would appreciate lower priced homes in the London area too

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

a lot of people would appreciate lower priced homes in the London area too

I'm sure some would but others appreciate green space.

chucky

cells wrote: »

If our system was closer to the French system, the 250k extra home built per year would result in around £50B more in revenue and some 1 million more jobs.

If our system was like the system in Qatar we would be an oil rich country with massive wealth.

Comparing to other countries is misleading as they are different economies with different demographics and a completely different geography.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm sure some would but others appreciate green space.

London is full of green space .. however in your terms they are considered to be concreted over as they are not 'green belt'

we need to make better use of existing land in London but a modest extension into the surrounding areas would provide major benefits to Londoners in terms of better sized homes at lower prices

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

London is full of green space .. however in your terms they are considered to be concreted over as they are not 'green belt'

we need to make better use of existing land in London but a modest extension into the surrounding areas would provide major benefits to Londoners in terms of better sized homes at lower prices

I agree there are parts of the green belt that could be used with only a small impact and I'm not against some development in the greenbelt. I was surprise when I looked at my local green belt map how much building was already in it.