Green Belt - what's it good for?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

what sort of planning do you want that say links the needs of essex with sussex?

it seems to make some sense for government to limit its involvement with local housing needs thus allowing the local government to decide the details

do you really want a planning commissar for the whole of the SE determining every detail of where, how and when of every house?

No but you need some sort of overall plan. Sussex might not impact to much on Essex but it does on Surrey, Hampshire, Sussex and Kent and the way I understand the numbers of property to be build goes down to borough level.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

No but you need some sort of overall plan. Sussex might not impact to much on Essex but it does on Surrey, Hampshire, Sussex and Kent and the way I understand the numbers of property to be build goes down to borough level.

I'm not sure what your practical concern is here

Each council is responsible for their detailed county plans without the overall government framework

what is wrong with that? is there too much housing being built or too little or in the wrong place?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure what your practical concern is here

Each council is responsible for their detailed county plans without the overall government framework

what is wrong with that? is there too much housing being built or too little or in the wrong place?

I'm surprised you can't see the need for an overall plan ensuring the infrastructure is in place and property is built in the least damaging places and that just telling each borough how many properties to build is far from an ideal solution.


I don't think that there is enough being build and at the moment I don't think to much is in the wrong place although it would be better in many cases if the infrastructure was better. But allowing building on green belt might mean that more is.

eve13_2

Not having a car, I find walks getting harder to get to as new housing keeps cropping up. I'm in an ever expanding village in the corner where the M25 and M23 crossover. Carbon monoxide levels are very high, the noise very loud. Yet we're being told yet more housing is going to be built, the usual high density, low quality on land that not only floods but also collapses as it has been quarried and landfilled to death. Its been landscaped and restored for recreational purposes but gas is still being monitored, as is the water as the ground settles. So yeah, it looks green and unused except for walkers, joggers, cyclists and horse riders as drivers speed past on the motorways.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm surprised you can't see the need for an overall plan ensuring the infrastructure is in place and property is built in the least damaging places and that just telling each borough how many properties to build is far from an ideal solution.


I don't think that there is enough being build and at the moment I don't think to much is in the wrong place although it would be better in many cases if the infrastructure was better. But allowing building on green belt might mean that more is.

depending upon what sort of area you live in, it is the democratically elected country council responsibility to plan for their own area.
Obviously they have to liaison with other other councils and the road authorities where necessary.


how else would you like it: maybe Prescott attempt at huge un-elected regional planning authority with no democratic accountability?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

depending upon what sort of area you live in, it is the democratically elected country council responsibility to plan for their own area.
Obviously they have to liaison with other other councils and the road authorities where necessary.


how else would you like it: maybe Prescott attempt at huge un-elected regional planning authority with no democratic accountability?

That would be good if they did but to many plans go ahead without and in some cases they even go ahead against neighbouring wishes.


You wouldn't need to have a huge planning authority just an system of looking at the overall outline planning it wouldn't have to go down to the detailed planning level.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

That would be good if they did but to many plans go ahead without and in some cases they even go ahead against neighbouring wishes.


You wouldn't need to have a huge planning authority just an system of looking at the overall outline planning it wouldn't have to go down to the detailed planning level.

obviously there is a system of looking at overall outline plans

why do you think there isn't?

however who do you think should have the final say if there is disagreement?
the country elected councils or a unelected quango?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously there is a system of looking at overall outline plans

why do you think there isn't?

however who do you think should have the final say if there is disagreement?
the country elected councils or a unelected quango?

I see no evidence. Who said anything about an unelected quango.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I see no evidence. Who said anything about an unelected quango.

who then would be the planning authority?

princeofpounds

Brownfield first, and then garden cities. Carefully considered town planning and architectural design.

Have you ever looked at brownfield planning applications?

This constant refrain you see that we 'should build on brownfield first' is something you hear a lot from commentators. But I don't think many of these people are aware that the planning system makes it almost as nightmarish as green belt.

If you buy under-utilised commercial space for conversion, councils often force you to try renting or selling it before they will even consider your intended residential use.

Buy industrial space and they won't give you change of use as 'people need employment'. As if they don't need housing.

Try to turn one house on a plot into more than one, it can be exceptionally hard as any increase in density gets refused as 'not in keeping with the local area'. And god forbid you try to build with a footprint or height any different to adjacent houses, violating the sacred roofline or building line.

Don't forget that a builder doing a single house on a brownfield site has to wade through exactly the same planning bureaucracy and pay exactly the same fees as a mega-development. That kills off so much that doesn't have economies of scale.

Brownfield development struggles because the system does not enable it; it's not about the costs of 'clearing up land'; only a fraction of urban land is contaminated, not every plot is a redundant petrol station. House prices are so high right in the SE that simple building economics is not remotely the problem.