Concrete over the greenbelt. Generation Rent is at breaking point

ruggedtoast

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/05/generation-rent-concrete-over-green-belt-renting

The green belt was an idea conceived a hundred years ago and implemented four decades later. Grasping on to it is like insisting on still driving a Model T to work, or eating rations, or not letting women vote. To Generation Rent, the opportunity to actually live in a house one day without putting our privates in the vice-like grip of a terrible landlord outweighs the trace chance of occasionally eating a blackberry without being shot by a farmer.

Is the countryside really so good? Do we actually have to go to such great lengths to protect vast areas which, no matter what you do or where you go, smell fundamentally of manure?

Should we really listen to Prince Charles about anything? The answer to all those questions, and more, is: oh, oh no. God no. No, absolutely not.

Not popular with these guys. Who are 7000% more likely to care about butterflies in Bletchley and cat charities than desperate young renters


Not popular with Rupert and Camilla, for whom the countryside is a giant tax payer funded pony paddock


Life for young renters. The wealthier ones have cars from the 1970s.


A renter contemplates re-signing another 6 month AST with their buy to let landlord

Concrete over it I say. Less thabn 4% of green belt has to go to account for Britain's housing need.

And anyone who says differently is a giant hypocrite, unless they happen to live in a yurt.

If you care so much about pristine meadows and middle class kids skipping along waving lunchboxes then bulldoze your own house and use the land as a nature reserve. Exactly what it was before someone decided you eventually having a roof over your head was more important than grass.

remorseless

Concreting the green belt would not solve the problem I reckon...
In many parts of the green belt you can already find affordable housing, it just will cost you an arm and a leg to commute into London.

Example:
Chelmsford (Essex) to London Zones 1-6 (30 min journey to Liverpool St station) = £4,704.00 a year season ticket.

a lot of London is occupied by low rise buildings, lots of terraces, etc.
If the plan is to get London area crammed, it may as well be with higher density buildings!

mayonnaise

No, we shouldn't turn London into

just to give Fiona Elsted a cheap house.

cells

remorseless wrote: »

Concreting the green belt would not solve the problem I reckon...
In many parts of the green belt you can already find affordable housing, it just will cost you an arm and a leg to commute into London.

Example:
Chelmsford (Essex) to London Zones 1-6 (30 min journey to Liverpool St station) = £4,704.00 a year season ticket.

a lot of London is occupied by low rise buildings, lots of terraces, etc.
If the plan is to get London area crammed, it may as well be with higher density buildings!

Only a fraction of any new towns jobs are not in the new town. Most work is local

schools hospitals GPs dentosts shops car maintiannce solicitors estate agents council jobs and most everything else is local. So only a fraction of the residents would need to commute to central London

new towns are needed

the idea of building more dense is often much nore expensive as it costs a lot of money to buy out the existing homeowners and a lot of money to knock down the existing structures and a lot of mobey and time to finance all of that. The only places its happening seems to be in council estates where tgey knock dowb 1000 flsts and build 2000 in its place only possible as its a lot easier with one freeholder

remorseless

cells wrote: »

Only a fraction of any new towns jobs are not in the new town. Most work is local

Sorry - I thought this was be to solve London's housing shortage/problem.

Outside of London (green belt area) properties are already fairly reasonably priced!

What is a town you think has a problem and how much do you think a property should be priced? And what sort of property?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Note how most of the comments below the line disagree (including those who rent but also value green space) and mock the writer's childish style.

This is a minority view in a nation that loves the idea of countryside even if they don't live there or visit very often. The membership of RSPB and viewing figures for Spring/AutumnWatch should give you a clue.

princeofpounds

Despite the fact that I do think planning laws need serious reform, I have to admit I found the article childish in style. I think that obscures the more fundamental points (many of which the writer misses).


The unfortunate thing is that the more this pressure builds up, and the longer it lasts, the more likely it is that the eventual response will be kneejerk and extreme.

remorseless

mayonnaise wrote: »

No, we shouldn't turn London into

that's driven by cars on the road and bad weather! I suppose with public transport being unaffordable, London could well turn into that soon...

I did find this disturbing though a while ago: 9500 people die in London a year because of pollution

BTW - Fiona does not want to buy a house, she's advocating for cheaper/better rent conditions (maybe she has too much time on her hands)

kabayiri

The focus on diesel cars over the last few decades will provide one of the biggest risks to public health. It's not always the pollution you can see which should concern.

The Manchester conurbation is expanding into the peak. If we can change then so can London.

Cornucopia

What's slightly alarming is that existing transport links are not being fully exploited. There is no reason not to have a station at Maidstone on the HS1 line. None whatsoever. In fact, the existing services from Maidstone are so poor, that significant commuting capability could be unlocked that way (reducing commute times from 1:10 to around 30 mins).

Done properly, that station could be an interchange with existing services (either Medway valley line between Strood & Cuxton, or mainline at Bearsted. Either option would enable "add-on" local journeys to HS1, opening up several more towns to London commuters.

I don't have a problem with the Green Belt per se, and it doesn't seem to apply to Brown-field development, anyway. There is an overall issue with the quality of planning in England, though, and it needs to be sorted out.

kabayiri

People have been complaining about planning and housing for years, especially in the SE

Perhaps there are people who see benefit in maintaining the current shortages?