Green Belt - what's it good for?

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I would also consider it a good use of taxpayers money but the problem is it's just not happening. As people are asking for property to be built on greenbelt and green field sites I can't see why some of the increase in value planning permission would give to that land should not be used to benefit the local community.

infrastructure improvement are happening all the time although I would prefer a much larger programme

however, I don't think it sensible to stop building new houses in appropriate places just because there is less than perfect roads.

I fully agree that there should be considerable tax of land rezoned for development, so the whole community benefits rather than a luck farmer.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes millions do it every single day

in generalbetter ch much better than it was 20 years ago

further transports improvement are needed of course

And London has seen about 2 milliom more people since 1990 so of it is betteer now you can certainly ruel out the idea that more people has to mean worse transport

also any new boroughs built within the m25 would both add area and people which is less of an issue for transport as adding more people into the same area.

so if London is to grow...seems inevitable...transport issues woild be less qirj new boroughs rather than adding more pepple to existing boroughs

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

infrastructure improvement are happening all the time although I would prefer a much larger programme

however, I don't think it sensible to stop building new houses in appropriate places just because there is less than perfect roads.

I fully agree that there should be considerable tax of land rezoned for development, so the whole community benefits rather than a luck farmer.

In the areas I use the most apart from M25 there has been very little infrastructure improvement. The problem is that in a lot of areas it would be difficult to improve roads without knocking down existing properties. I think the number of properties needed in the south east is so great piece meal development will not solve the problem.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

And London has seen about 2 milliom more people since 1990 so of it is betteer now you can certainly ruel out the idea that more people has to mean worse transport

also any new boroughs built within the m25 would both add area and people which is less of an issue for transport as adding more people into the same area.

so if London is to grow...seems inevitable...transport issues woild be less qirj new boroughs rather than adding more pepple to existing boroughs

The transport in London is not far off breaking point. Although you have a good grasp of figures and statistics you seem to have very little idea about how things work in the real world. You could build a 5kmsq town somewhere south east of London but it does not follow that work and commercial activity will move there.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

No we need both, it's no good building new developments if its going to take someone the best part of an hour to drive 10 miles to work. You and cells seem to think that you can build a big development and the infrastructure will take care of itself but that is not what happens.

Please state what infrastructure you are refering to

presumably roads? And nothig more? If there is more do state it



Regarding roads. All internal roads are paid for by the developer. The development is then connected to an external existing road. Sometimes this has huge overcapacity. Eg the M54. And the new develpent adds nil stress to this existing road.

at other times. Eg a develpent in the M25 it will add to the strees of peak m25 road use. However why should say a develpent of 100k homes be forced to fund a second m25? Or why should the development solely be responsible for an upgrade?

Did existing homes pay for the existing m25? No general taxation did

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Please state what infrastructure you are refering to

presumably roads? And nothig more? If there is more do state it



Regarding roads. All internal roads are paid for by the developer. The development is then connected to an external existing road. Sometimes this has huge overcapacity. Eg the M54. And the new develpent adds nil stress to this existing road.

at other times. Eg a develpent in the M25 it will add to the strees of peak m25 road use. However why should say a develpent of 100k homes be forced to fund a second m25? Or why should the development solely be responsible for an upgrade?

Did existing homes pay for the existing m25? No general taxation did

This shows that you take no notice of the practicalities where will these new roads go the government will not fund until well after the event.


It's not just roads it includes hospitals and schools if you are building new towns you will new schools and maybe a hospital the government will not fund these in the short term even if they should.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

This shows that you take no notice of the practicalities where will these new roads go the government will not fund until well after the event.


It's not just roads it includes hospitals and schools if you are building new towns you will new schools and maybe a hospital the government will not fund these in the short term even if they should.

And say you don't build a new town for 300k people. Instead you put these 300k people into existing London (were larger homes have been convertes to multiple smaller flats.

you don't need more hospitals or doctors?

These 300k people dont get sick in flats they only get sick in new towns?

Their kids dont need new schools and additional teachers? The flats will educate them?



You only have two choices. Build more dense or build on more land. Of those two they both need more roads and more hospitals. Building on new land nakes it easier not harder

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

And say you don't build a new town for 300k people. Instead you put these 300k people into existing London (were larger homes have been convertes to multiple smaller flats.

you don't need more hospitals or doctors?

These 300k people dont get sick in flats they only get sick in new towns?

Their kids dont need new schools and additional teachers? The flats will educate them?



You only have two choices. Build more dense or build on more land. Of those two they both need more roads and more hospitals. Building on new land nakes it easier not harder

Building more densely within London combined with some development outside would be the best solution but how are you going to convince all those people living in nice semis to sell up so you can replace them with flats.


Solving the housing problem in London is very difficult and we are not starting from scratch. I'm not saying it's impossible there is land to the east of London especially the south that could be used but that would need major new infrastructure and there is no appetite for that.

cells

wilrper wrote: »

Building more densely within London combined with some development outside would be the best solution but how are you going to convince all those people living in nice semis to sell up so you can replace them with flats.


Solving the housing problem in London is very difficult and we are not starting from scratch. I'm not saying it's impossible there is land to the east of London especially the south that could be used but that would need major new infrastructure and there is no appetite for that.

The population increase is coming, the stance of just ignoring it is probably the worst option.

IMO we will get the same as the last ten years. More dense building and a higher occupancy rate with HPI rationing.

all of the infrastructure problems will be worse with that what we are headed for, not with new towns and boroughs

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

The population increase is coming, the stance of just ignoring it is probably the worst option.

IMO we will get the same as the last ten years. More dense building and a higher occupancy rate with HPI rationing.

all of the infrastructure problems will be worse with that what we are headed for, not with new towns and boroughs

I think you are right nothing much will change a bit more building will be permitted in the greenbelt there might be the odd new town and areas out of London which are expanding now will continue to expand.