Concrete over the greenbelt. Generation Rent is at breaking point

remorseless

I thought complaining was some form of Britishness

If you live outside of London and you don't need to come into London, what is the actual problem with housing??

MS1950

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

Here's some apparently 'prize winning' alternative proposals published by the 'Adam Smith Institute'......

However, if it wasn't for the similar views published on the writer's 'blog' (linked at the end of the article) I would have taken it for a rather good satire.....

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning-transport/britain-needs-more-slums/

Grenage

One day, one glorious day, people will discover contraceptives; then there won't be housing 'crisis'.

Grasping onto the ye-old notion of a green belt is far less stupid than the notion that people should be able to pump out as many children as they wish.

Pennywise

Or the major employers in London could move to other cities. It's just inertia that keeps the big firms in The City. Over time, existing big employers could relocate and new employers could start up elsewhere. Far less damaging to the environment than forever building new homes, more infrastructure etc in an already heavily densely populated area.

lisyloo

It's just inertia

If you mean that the companies are there because the talent is there because the jobs are there because the companies are there............the yes.
It takes courage to be the first to break the cycle though.
If you have existing valuable staff then you don't want to lose them.
Recruitment is expensive.

princeofpounds

I don't have a problem with the Green Belt per se

For all my complaints about how planning is handled, I don't actually have huge problem with green areas myself.


But belts were a foolish policy to follow. Green wedges work much better - they bring green areas right up to the centre of the city, they consequently have better access from all points rather than just the leafy suburbs. They also don't throttle transport and other infrastructure links between the city and commuting/other destinations. Finally, they enable an economically efficient structure of development, rather than the peverse structure we have now which simply creates overspill in towns outside the green belt, forcing people to travel across the green belt to get in.


My other longstanding policy point is that green belts/wedges are not managed correctly or consistently with their state goals. The green belt is mostly composed of horse paddocks, golf courses, the occasional monoculture arable field and scrapyards/caravan storage sites masquerading as farms. More of Surrey is golf courses than homes, just 142 of the damn things.


Far far better to have green space more akin to our commons, which are a) actually greener, b) better for wildlife and c) actually accessible by the public rather than just being something to stare at as your drive past on your way to land you are actually allowed to access.

Running_Horse

Over a third of London's population is foreign born.

Just how much of our countryside should be sacrificed to house the world? And when this has been done, how many millions will follow to occupy this housing and then demand more? Green belt is not the problem. If London needs more housing they should knock down houses and build flats.

Generali

mayonnaise wrote: »

No, we shouldn't turn London into

just to give Fiona Elsted a cheap house.

To be fair, the analogous smog problem in China was cured in London by the Clean Air Acts. The Green Belt (not building where there was already little building) didn't get rid of the London smog it was stopping the burning of coal in London.

remorseless

cakeforbrains wrote: »

Whilst London is suffering from crazy prices, it doesn't follow that the rest of the country is reasonably priced.

I live on the south coast, where our 3-bed houses are £250k-300k, and that's with plenty of space to build. Wages around here are really low, too.

but do you need a 3-bed house? How much do you think a house should be worth where you are?

Cornucopia

That's a good question, and one that I've asked property bears before (and received no response).

The difficulty in coming to an answer for a 3-4 bedroom house, is that that purchase, for most people, is some way down the line from their first purchase, which is the one linked more directly to earnings.

We can come up with a purchase scenario, though:

FTB: 4x Salary = £100k (in many areas), with a £5k-10k deposit

Owned for 5 years with 3.5%pa HPI = £118k, £28k equity.

New mortgage: 3x Both Salaries (£27k+£22k) = £175k + additional savings, maybe £10k = purchase price of £185k

These figures (£100k for a 1-2 bed flat, and £185k for a 3-bed House) are not far off the figures in my area (Medway Towns) which is still commutable (at a cost) to London.