Should we build on Green-belt land?

Question

Just been hearing about all the extra housing that this country (UK) needs, and the government is considering building on green-belt land to solve the problems.

Personally I am totally against this. The green-belt areas and countryside are places that this country is built on...its natural and wild areas. Its an escape for city dwellers and a proud back garden for people who live in the countryside. What was the point in creating green-belt areas if we are just going to build on them. Its greed and money because there are plenty of derelict building unused in London and i guess all over the country, lets use those spaces first.

What does everyone else think and does anyone know of any protest organisations who focus on these kinds of issues?

Just to add...I am not an avid greenie ! I dis-believe the whole carbon footprint business in its current form, I also dont believe in Global warming in its current state, its a ruse to make more money..i believe in the earths ice age/earm age scenario....anyway

Guy u - I assume your talking about the largest housing development in the country to be built by 2012 or something, something like 25,000 homes right next to Dartford/Greenhithe? I know, its happening all over round there, I used to live there and whilst there they already chopped down trees and got rid of fields to make way for new flats..disgusting.

Retox - I appreciate we need more housing but why not use the thousands of un used building in the city first? As for your concern about more building in the city..sorry but I live there too and I think i would rather they built there than the countryside...if you want nice green areas..go live in the country...if you cant..travel more. As for the greenbelt land being a 'divider', what do you propose? Build right up to the copuntryside and stop? How nice...The New Forest backing on to tower blocks and pollution..that defeats the purpose of countryside..if its getting too crowded in the city..people should move out.

Answer 1

No never,,they were set up to keep our conurbations within strict limitations.....we have to maintain the green belt for what it is,,there are plenty of undeveloped spaces within every city

Answer 2

They should be allowed to build on green belt - where else are the government supposed to build the millions of houses planned over the next few years?

People don't seem to mind the continual building in city areas which causes problems of it's own - as long as it's not in the countryside! then we all have to gasp in horror. Greenbelt is land that separates city from the countryside - nothing more than that. It is not areas of outstanding natural beauty or protected land - that's what the eco warriors want you to believe. Most of the time it's wasted scrubland. Put it too good use and build the houses we desperately need.

Answer 3

There are plenty of derelict and overlooked area's in and around all urban cities, like manchester, london etc. I cannt see why the Government fails to identify these places and regenerates them to ease the housing problems. Building on greenbelts is a "soft option" as they need houses so they look for the most convienent place to build.
Am not a commentator for green credentials, BUT surely there must have been a thought process involved when you set aside the land as a greenbelt area all those decades ago, and now to backtrack on that and say housing takes more priority seems a cop out.
I live in London, and know for a fact that there are plenty of underdeveloped housing area's in the east end, BUT nobody wants to go there as its not as picturesque as living on in the countryside. Aesthetics has a part to play as well, who'd want to live in a smog filled suburb when you have fields at your doorstep?

Answer 4

There are enough brownfield sites and empty properties without building on green belt areas. But of course the developers will not make as much money from properties built on these. How much building will be allowed to be built before time is called. We only have so much land, we cannot keep on, otherwise we will see much more flooding.

Answer 5

Convert the many empty office blocks into flats. There are also some groups of shops shuttered up which could make homes.

No need to build on green belt. Use brown sites left by engineering companies who now manufacture in the far east

Answer 6

As someone who wasnt born here in Scotland, but lives here (Mother is Scottish), now, I can honestly say that the countryside both here and what I have seen in England, is absolutely beautiful This is what attracted me to come here, amongst other things such as personality. I would be very unhappy to se the countryside ruined by more houses being built and the loss of community and friendliness which I am always greeted with when visiting these small towns. I also plan on retiring up north in the way off future as well as buying a small cabin so that I can holiday up there too , in the mean time. I see the countryside as a means of escape...... The wild life would also dissapear which would be a tremendous loss.

Answer 7

I do not feel that we should be building on Green Belt Land, especially when there is a huge amount of brown field sites available, I think that the Government has to work much harder to offers incentives for developers to start building on brownfield sites. One organisation who are building on brownfield sites and trying to regenerate parts of london with affordable house are the Coin Street Community Builders, try googling/yahooing them for more information.

Answer 8

Emphatically no! We have to protect the planet and not mans greed. We have too many buildings on this small island already! I don't know of any organisation you can join in order to protest.but the only option that I can see that would possibly help is a change of government. I agree with you that unfortunately the cities and towns are infiltrating the countryside and the green belt areas should be sacred!

Answer 9

Given the very high number of new houses required, we may need to use a small percentage of green-belt possibly by establishing New Towns rather than expand existing conurbations. The danger is once the precedent is set we may be on the slippery slope to concreting over large areas of the UK.

Answer 10

The green-belt was a con from the start,it was introduced to prevent housing being built near the great estates of the gentry.Yes,we should use brown-sites first,but it is nowhere near enough to satisfy demand.

Answer 11

Definitely not - it's been declared green belt for a reason.

There are enough wastelands and derelict areas that could become part of a regeneration plan.