The Green -Belt should be built over

[nightshade]

Because the green belt comprises low value farmland with no scenic value it should be built on says Kate Barker(author of the Barker Report)
Protected land surrounding cities should be sacrificed to reduce the number of commuters
driving over it
Barker Review Index
Coupled with new planning proposalsit looks like the wealthy will build housed in the countryside willy nilly(only to complain of farmyard noise)

[Dorcas]

oh I remember this I thought this report had been put to bed

[Bushcraft]

Slightly off the topic but brown field sites often have a higher biodiversity than greenbelt land. Both should be protected. I say lets all sleep under the stars.

[Deer Stalker]

It would be sleeping under the rain clouds just lately.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Bushcraft

Slightly off the topic but brown field sites often have a higher biodiversity than greenbelt land. Both should be protected. I say lets all sleep under the stars.

Every single site should be judged on it's own merits with regard to it's value to the local and national commmunity, wildlife and relative potential value when developed. These things should be carefully assessed and balanced. There is no blanket right or wrong some greenfield and brownfield sites can actually be improved in terms of both biodiversity and value to people when developed and these should be the areas concentrated on. However, such sites cannot be identified by looking at a map nor purely by identifying previous uses of the land every site should be properly and individually assessed on foot by people who know what they are looking for.

[Paul mabbott]

Absolutely true, Gill.
Unfortunately the planning authorities don't always take note of ecological surveys. I won't list all the brownfield sites along the Thames and Lea valleys that have gone under housing or road or superstores with car parks - still happening now at Thurrock.
Also, the planners don't take in concepts such as wildlife corridors.
It isn't helped by organisations like CPRE protesting about building on farmland (which often has no biological value at all) and saying that *all* development should be on urban 'wasteland'!

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Every single site should be judged on it's own merits with regard to it's value to the local and national commmunity, wildlife and relative potential value when developed. These things should be carefully assessed and balanced. There is no blanket right or wrong some greenfield and brownfield sites can actually be improved in terms of both biodiversity and value to people when developed and these should be the areas concentrated on. However, such sites cannot be identified by looking at a map nor purely by identifying previous uses of the land every site should be properly and individually assessed on foot by people who know what they are looking for.

[Wild-Woman]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Absolutely true, Gill.
Unfortunately the planning authorities don't always take note of ecological surveys. I won't list all the brownfield sites along the Thames and Lea valleys that have gone under housing or road or superstores with car parks - still happening now at Thurrock.
Also, the planners don't take in concepts such as wildlife corridors.
It isn't helped by organisations like CPRE protesting about building on farmland (which often has no biological value at all) and saying that *all* development should be on urban 'wasteland'!

As usual, it boils down to the root of all evil-money.

[flying red fox]

I mean no offence to immigrants but if they severly limited them coming into the country to live here, there will be a lesser need for new houses on lovelly countryside.

Thats a good idea isnt it?

[Jane_Russell]

I don't believe immigration is the major cause of increased house building.

Jane

[Paul mabbott]

Quite so. There are plenty of houses vacant or falling to pieces in most towns. The 'green' land grabbing is due to people going up-market, wanting larger places (i.e. more garages, more concrete gardens) or simply going to "better" areas ... of course, there are builders who would want to build and sell houses even if there were absolutely no need for them!

Originally Posted by Jane_Russell

I don't believe immigration is the major cause of increased house building. Jane

[lewisa]

Sorry, double post.

[lewisa]

Immigration is definately not the problem. The total population has remained more or less static for years.

Increased divorce rate is the biggest factor in my opinion.

As for housing being left empty, thats a compicated issue, I wouldnt want to live on a 90% empty smack ridden almost derelict estate. I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy.

They should be flattened, lanscaped and given back to nature, that will go some way to lessening the blow of building new housing, which does need to happen, somewhere.

[colincurry]

The barbarians are at the gate.

Builders must be rubbing their hands with glee, on the way to the bank.

The concept of the green belt should be kept sacosanct. These people confuse change with progress. What was a good idea is still a good idea. Big is not beautiful and the green belt provides a healthy collar.

Any new development should be sustainable and incorporate jobs so that people need not commute. We have the "privilege" of a new town being built near us (ironically, I believe that it will be partly on land currently used as an Immigration Centre). A big play is made of the fact that the town is designed to be sustainable incorporating work, leisure, health and education facilities. This will not stop people travelling, but might help reduce the need.

I will now put away my soapbox.

Colin

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by lewisa

Immigration is definately not the problem. The total population has remained more or less static for years.

*So why does Bradford need 30,000/300,000 (can't remember which) new houses? *Immigration is in itself of less immediate significance than immigrant fertility.
*The green belt is already being built on around here.
*I have had my wrist slapped once already for mentioning immigration.
* And I have already stated my opinion - reinforced by some highly prominent people - that over-population is every bit as much a threat to the well-being of this planet as is global warming.
* You can say goodbye to open countryside in this country. Its erosion will accelerate in the immediate future.(In my very humble opinion)
* It is very unlikely that anything can be done to stop it, but it definitely won't if we are afraid to discuss it.

[lewisa]

Originally Posted by Airehead

*So why does Bradford need 30,000/300,000 (can't remember which) new houses?

Because at the local level, there are not enough houses. The ethnic diversity of the local populace has nothing directly to do with the need of new housing. There are a myriad of forces that affect the need for housing. Most likely population migration - an on-going process that never stops, probably the best example of it is in China at the moment (with males looking for work), but it happens in the UK as well, young people (female especially) leave the surrounding countryside to head for the cities. Their old country houses are snapped up by rich upper middle classes as holiday homes and another house is taken out of the pool.

Then there is the aforementioned divorce rate which you seem to have totally overlooked, with the breakdown of the family unit almost half of marraiges end up failing and every family needs two houses rather than one. Millions of failing marraiges needing two homes each makes up a much larger number than 4,000,000 ethnic minorities living 5 or 6 to a house.

*The green belt is already being built on around here.

Shame, but on the plus side, its better than having tens of thousands of derelict, empty houses.

*I have had my wrist slapped once already for mentioning immigration.

Not by me you havent. As far as Im concerned you can talk about what you want and i'll read it, I might not agree, but I wont slap anyones wrist for anything they say.

* And I have already stated my opinion - reinforced by some highly prominent people - that over-population is every bit as much a threat to the well-being of this planet as is global warming.

Yes, I know it is, where did I say it wasnt?

* You can say goodbye to open countryside in this country. Its erosion will accelerate in the immediate future.(In my very humble opinion)

Regarding the country as a whole I disagree. If you were talking about the south east I would agree, but I dont see that as a problem in most areas. There is an awful lot of countryside left.

* It is very unlikely that anything can be done to stop it, but it definitely won't if we are afraid to discuss it.

Who said we are afraid to discuss it? Im not.

I get the feeling you are on the defensive and im not sure why - for what its worth Im a stereotypical white 30 year old male and live very near Burnley, so Ive had to come to terms with having large asain populations nearby and vioelence/rioting in the past. I dont like the lack of integration much and at the time of the riots I will go as far as to say I probably turned racist for a short time. It was hard not to.

That doesnt mean the housing problem is their fault though.

If the national population was rising rapidly because of it then I would agree, but it isnt. We had 60,000,000 people 10 years ago, we now have 60,000,000, so why is the housing shortage the fault of immigaration?

At the moment immagration simply cancels out our own inabilty to sustain our national population level.

Theres also the fact that the average white household will probably contain less than 3 people, the average asain household will contain more.

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by lewisa

Not by me you havent. As far as Im concerned you can talk about what you want and i'll read it, I might not agree, but I wont slap anyones wrist for anything they say..

It's more a matter of what the moderaters allow - or don't allow, which is what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by lewisa

Yes, I know it is, where did I say it wasnt?.

I didn't say you did. And you think I am defensive?

Originally Posted by lewisa

Regarding the country as a whole I disagree. If you were talking about the south east I would agree, but I dont see that as a problem in most areas. There is an awful lot of countryside left.

You disagree with people better informed than me. But generally, I find that the more cynical you are, the more likely you are to be right.

Originally Posted by lewisa

Who said we are afraid to discuss it? Im not.?.

This was not a random statement. I was stopped by the moderators from discussing it.

Originally Posted by lewisa

That doesnt mean the housing problem is their fault though

It certainly isn't. It is entirely 'our' fault. But it goes back through history. Whose fault is not relevant to the reality of the problem

Originally Posted by lewisa

We had 60,000,000 people 10 years ago, we now have 60,000,000.

I have an ageing and faulty memory. I thought it had fairly recently been stated by the media that the population has just reached 60,000,000.

Originally Posted by lewisa

Theres also the fact that the average white household will probably contain less than 3 people, the average asain household will contain more.

That's what I said. And it answers your question "why is the housing shortage the fault of immigaration?".