Green Belt - what's it good for?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

'less profitable'

and

'cost would be prohibitive to small builders'

is there really that massive difference between the costs (and /or skills) of large builders and small ones?


you may well wish to abolish planning laws and build all over the countryside will nilly but I favour sensible reforms of the planning laws and abolition of extra taxes and levies on people that buy new build houses.

you may also wish to reflect upon how the planning rules and levies make developing brown field sites sufficiently unattractive that small builders won't build there.

Disposal of some waste can be expensive and large builder would have access to specialist companies. Perhaps you could explain what you mean sensible reforms. I'm sure some of the taxes as you call them could be modified but someone has to pay for additional infrastructure.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Disposal of some waste can be expensive and large builder would have access to specialist companies. Perhaps you could explain what you mean sensible reforms. I'm sure some of the taxes as you call them could be modified but someone has to pay for additional infrastructure.

why wouldn't small builders have access to specialist companies?


if developing brown field sites in the general interest of society, then why do you think struggling FTBs should be burdened with the these costs?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

why wouldn't small builders have access to specialist companies?


if developing brown field sites in the general interest of society, then why do you think struggling FTBs should be burdened with the these costs?

They would have access but not the economy of scale.


The cost of the brown field site should reflect the cost of preparing it why should the general public bare those costs and not the people profiting from the sale.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

They would have access but not the economy of scale.


The cost of the brown field site should reflect the cost of preparing it why should the general public bare those costs and not the people profiting from the sale.

all brown field sites aren't massive
all brown field sites aren't contaminated


however if the costs are 'massive' then there wouldn't be much/any profit if the houses are sold at 'normal' prices.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

all brown field sites aren't massive
all brown field sites aren't contaminated


however if the costs are 'massive' then there wouldn't be much/any profit if the houses are sold at 'normal' prices.

True and they are the ones that are being built on. If the costs are massive the value of the land should reflect that.

POPPYOSCAR

So when do we stop building on green belt?

When there is none left to build on?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

So when do we stop building on green belt?

When there is none left to build on?

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???

ukcarper

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???

Perhaps if you lived in the more crowded parts of the south east you would have a different view. I do agree that there is scope for some building in the green belt but it needs to be planned carefully and the infrastructure needs to be put in place. I supposedly live in a village just outside the green belt but it just merges in with several towns and villages.

POPPYOSCAR

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps if you lived in the more crowded parts of the south east you would have a different view. I do agree that there is scope for some building in the green belt but it needs to be planned carefully and the infrastructure needs to be put in place. I supposedly live in a village just outside the green belt but it just merges in with several towns and villages.

Which it rarely is.

The effect on potential flooding made worse is never taken into account either.

POPPYOSCAR

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???

10.6% in England but that is irrelevant if you happen to live in a concrete jungle. Green belt is supposed to be the 'lungs' of the towns.

Not many new towns or houses are built in the middle of nowhere.