Green Belt - what's it good for?

cells

Mallotum_X wrote: »

We have built at that rate before. Was reading recently that post WW1, there were roughly 8m homes in the UK, by WW2 that was at 12m, or 2m per decade.

If we really want these things to happen we need to change the mindset of some, and get on with it. Perhaps it helped at that time that there was an attitude of providing housing for war heros. Maybe some of the problem is the perception that new housing is needed for "chavs, single mums and foreign types".

2 million a decade is roughly the rate it has been for 3 decades.
The 2000s being the decade that 2 million was not enough as the population grew far more rapidly than the two decades piror.

its now got worse in tje 2010s as the population is growing even faster than the 2000s and the build rate has crashes towards 1.5m a decade.

what is needed now is 400-500k a year. Its not impossible the UK has passed 400k a year before. Plua france is building 400k a year now and has been for at least two decades even through they have more gomes per head than we do

you are roght about the perception of who needs new housing. Most people simply dont understand that demographics simply means we need more homes for the existing population not for immigrants

Generali

cells wrote: »

Its not difficult at all

The stap issue level over the last 20 years was about 200k a year. It just needs to double

Go back more than 3-4 decades and the stamp giving was closer to 300k a year


Also there are some 650 MPs. If each of their areas issued just 700 stamps a year that is 455k a year. Why would you think a council woild fid it impossible to stamp 700 homes a year which would nit be 700 separate stamps ans investigations its more likely to be 100 or less developments with multiple homes per development



control needs to be removed from the councils as they have clearly funked up for the last 2-3 decades. Fine them heavily (eg maybe £50k fine per unit below 700 a year. So issue 600 stamps and get fined £5million. Previous years excess can be used for future year offsetting)

Currently there is no punishment for councils not providing enough homes so they choose to not provode many homes

To be fair, there are large parts of the country (cities of the north & midlands, large parts of Scotland, Wales and NI) where new houses aren't required. The pressure is in the part of the country where it's hardest to build, that being all of the south and the SE in particular.

I take your point but building perhaps 2000 houses a year in a third of constituencies is going to harder.

cells

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, there are large parts of the country (cities of the north & midlands, large parts of Scotland, Wales and NI) where new houses aren't required. The pressure is in the part of the country where it's hardest to build, that being all of the south and the SE in particular.

More homes are needed even if the population isn't growing

Currently the occupancy rate is 2.35 but it needs to fall towards 2.0

That means even if an example town of 235k persons with 100k homes stays at the same population it wouldpneed to build 17.5k additional homes to allow the occupancy rate to fall.

as far as I know there aren't many/any towns in the UK that are shrinking in population therefore virtually everywhere even the north east will need additional homes over the years

of course a town that doesn't grow in population will need fewer than a town that does


Also the idea that its more difficult to build in the SE is not right. Cement dries just as quick. Wood is cut just as fast. Nails are hammered just as quickly. And stamps can be stamped juat as fast in all parts of the country.
However I know what you mean, I woild accept the argument for areas tjat are 10,000 or more persons per km2 whicch means jist a handful of inner London boroughs. Every where else can expand just as easily as the NE

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

'London' is ~1575 km2

But inside the m25 is closer to 2300 km2

The difference of 700 sqkm is largely empty space most of it greenbelt

10 new boroughs each roughly 25km2 and housing 300k people each would thus take up 250 out of the 700 km2 of largely empty space inside the M25

These 10 new boroughs could allow London to expand by 3 million people without the existing borough needing to build more dense

Also these ten new boroughs would only need 1 tube station each seeing as how everyone would be within walking distance of this one tube station.

---

Of course existing boroughs have been building more and more dense and this will probably continue for a time but I suspect some areas are near saturation. Eg Islington and Hackney is already over 13k persons per km2 and im not sure they could go much past perhaps 15k even if they wanted to do so.

The next 20 years may see the UK population go up by 10 million and the UK will need some 10 million more homes. Either this is spread very evenly and most towns expand their population by20% and their hhousing stock by 30% or this increase needs to be concentrated. If it is to be concentrated then London and tje SE will take more people and need more homes.

Show me on a map inside m25 will do.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

NO no no

People use infrastructure not homes infrastructure should be paid for out of general taxation. Think of the opposite. If I buy two homes and make them one I've got rid of a house so should I be entitled to a 50k tax refund?

Also most the need for additional homes is for the current population.

For example. A town of 240k people with 100k homes needs to become a town of still 240k people but 120k homes. The housing stock needs to grow by 20% but the number of people is the same. You don't need more schools or hospitals or railroads or shops or industrial sites as you have the same number of people.

Also the idea that infrastructure is or needs to be expensive is false. Look at China still a poor second world country yet its currently building more than all our infrastructure every single year

The flaw in your argument is that the new developments will not be where the old developments are so new infrastructure will be needed.


If planning permission is granted to a piece of farmland the value of that land increases dramatically I don't see why some of that should not go to the government.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Show me on a map inside m25 will do.

Im sure you are capable of opening googlemaps and having a gander

whatever yout point is out with it

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The flaw in your argument is that the new developments will not be where the old developments are so new infrastructure will be needed.


If planning permission is granted to a piece of farmland the value of that land increases dramatically I don't see why some of that should not go to the government.

The primary reason its value increases dramatically is becuase so few are granted. If sufficient quantities were granted then the uplift would be much smaller. Eg the uplift on converting french or German agri to build ng land is a fraction of that of the UK. So there wouldn't ve much or any money for you to grab


also for the argument that more infrastructure wpuld be needed becuase the new homes would be far from the exisring infrastructure is not that valid a point. Homes can be built close enough to existing infrastructure. 1 mile is only two minites on a car so at most you are looking at secinds further from said infrastructure than the existing outer bounds. Also as noted infrastructure isn't unaffordable. Plus 20% more homes doesn't equate to antrhing near 20% more infrastructure. It may be even less than 2%

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The flaw in your argument is that the new deveit bpments will not be where the old developments are so new infrastructure will be needed.

If planning permission is granted to a piece of farmland the value of that land increases dramatically I don't see why some of that should not go to the government.

Alsp lets try to list this impossible infrastructure since so many say its a possible concern yet use auch a bland word

so

electricity. ...privately paid so not your concern
water....same
Natural gas....same
shops....same
industrial units.....same
commercial units....same
airports....same
Sea ports...same

as you can see virtually all infrastructure is privately built and funded so you cant even think of them and link them to new homes


Roads within a development. ...provided by the developer

roads from development to existing roads....developers can and will build close to exostong links so this isnt a cost

so what have we left infrastructure wise....

well just
schools. Hospitals. Fire and police buildings.
but guess what that is mostly paid for by general taxation.
even if not these buildings cost a fraction of thr running cost so their overall cost over time is tiny. Im sire the council tax from the new homes would many many tomea over pay for these


so stop citing infrastructure as some.sort of unachievable stopper and concern. It isn't

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Im sure you are capable of opening googlemaps and having a gander

whatever yout point is out with it

You can look a googlemaps but it doesn't tell the whole story come on show me somewhere with good existing transports links.

lvader

I was thinking about this the other day while working in Italy. I was in the Tuscany hills, the views where beautiful, but it wasn't exactly unpopulated. No matter where you looked you could see houses, churches etc. To me these buildings perfectly complimented the land around them, it made it more interesting. There has to be a middle ground between no development and cement city, other countries seem to be able to get the right mix.