Labour plans to plow over green belt

I'm not interested in what the UK looks like from a flippin airplane! What matters is the actual experience of real people on the ground. I'm in rural Essex and it's now so crowded I could scream. My local woods have been hacked down to build a new estate, and a second giant estate is going up at the other end of the village that, frankly, is more like a new town. The traffic is so awful I barely go out. And in the summer, instead of birdsong all you can hear is the screeching and exploding of boy racer cars.

The left always treat people like statistics. Statistically you could fit the world's entire population on the Isle of Wight, if we all stood shoulder to shoulder and no one breathed. But would you want to live on the Isle of Wight? No doubt some left-wing lunatics would, because they will put up with ANYTHING rather than control immigration. And that's the key. Labour are effectively saying "look, we're not going to clamp down on immigration. You know it, and we know it. Immigration will increase under a centre-left government, and you're just going to have to get used to it. The British countryside, especially in the midlands and the south, has got to go."

Last year, net migration was 600,000. That's the population of Manchester. But the migration crisis hasn't even started yet. Africa has the highest birth rate in the world. In fact, their birth rate is so high the African population is going to double by 2050. On top of that, lifespan is increasing, which means people aren't dying and making room. More and more people, more and more houses, more and more noise, less and less space...that's the future.

A lot of left-wing people secretly love to imagine lives being ruined by Labour's building plans. They pose as morally superior, but they are every bit as hate-filled as the right. Still, their hatred is directed towards middle-class NIMBYs, so that's OK.

I wish people like the OP would say what the solution is to the housing crisis. People are living around a decade longer than 40 years ago, meaning that fewer houses are available for young families. Assuming that no one thinks the elderly should be made to downsize, then we need more homes built.

There are currently too many demands on our land, greenbelt or otherwise. We need more housing. We need more farmland. We need land for wind farms, and solar farms. We need more land for reservoirs. For every housing estate or new town, you will need these, and schools, and doctors, and shops. You do also need land for leisure, for all the stressed people shoved into small living spaces.

What is the limit, which is more important. Each will rely on the others being available.

If you generally make your political decisions based on headlines then by all means let perfect be the enemy of good. However if you'd like your vote to make a difference it is worth considering that "green belt" is a formal Planning term with very specific legal meaning and often does not line up with the sort of green space it's nice to have on your doorstep. If this is something you feel strongly about you might want to read some Planning decisions where you live (they will be on your council's website) or even go along to watch your local council's Planning panel in action - it's eye opening to see how policy translates into real life.

A huge number of people are living in intolerable damp, overcrowded dumps because we have a severe housing shortage in the places where there are jobs. Something has to change, and attempts to move jobs Up North won't work at the scale that's needed in the near future - so more houses are needed.

The problem is they always build new on top of old because it's cheaper . It would be far better not to concrete over the whole of the south east , parts are at saturation point now , and build north , new towns , incentivise companies to move in creating jobs . New infrastructure.

We need to build a huge amount of housing. We’re getting to a crisis point.

The green belt can cause issues. People end up being pushed out of the city increasing commutes, traffic and the associated pollution. Oxford os a great example of this. We need more housing in our cities which is the most sustainable way for people to live.

Meanwhile the atrocities of the Tories during g Covid continue to absolutely sicken me. No comparison.

For your information I used both terms tradesmen and tradespeople in my posts, but clearly reading is not your strong point, so quit with the sexist crap. Not one person has mentioned on this thread that trades people are excluded, only you have made the claim that no golf clubs in Surrey have trades as members, it’s there as clear as day in your posts, but you keep denying it if it makes you feel better.

@brujarosada More information -

"Sir Keir used the example of houses being built on a playing field in Maidstone rather than on a car park, with the reason given that the car park was classified as being in the green belt." Evening Standard

Sir Keir, speaking to Times Radio, said developers and landowners were holding on to real estate as they “try to ensure that it gains as much value as possible”.
He added: “Developers and landowners actually have a vested interest in not building so many houses, because that keeps the price high."

I didn't say that tradespeople were excluded! Somebody else did. FWIW I wouldn't use a sexist term like tradesman either.

Private golf clubs are full of people with money, is that any better?

Golf courses are terrible for the environment. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/07/17/golf-is-a-giant-board-game-damaging-the-planet-time-for-it-to-go

@shoeawsome Thank you for providing the actual wording behind the story. It's a good balance to the OP.

Are you incapable of reading your own posts back? You replied to another poster who said golf clubs were not elitist and were full of trades people and you said “not in Surrey they aren’t”

We have a low % of land classed as 'developed' - only 8.7%

To build only 1.5m more homes, we'd be looking at a tiny fractional increase in that %. Much will go on brownfield anyway.

I think it is basically irrational to be bothered about that change, which is way better than Tory projects like approving open cast mines, allowing change of use for other damaging developments, and pumping shit into rivers etc. etc.

The Tories want to allow property developers to pollute more. The Tories want to expand road building on the greenbelt.

Please could you point out where I wrote (not said) that no tradesmen were members of golf clubs, because I can't find it?

No they’re not,

These are defined as brownfield sites , and so do not come into the definition of green belt, no matter what their location. A lot of brownfield sites are unpopular with developers because the clearance and possibly decontamination costs can be quite high.

A nice field or a wood , though…..

As at April 2022:

• 8.7% of land in England is of developed use, with 91.1% of non-developed use and the remaining 0.2% being vacant.
• The top 3 land use groups were 'Agriculture' (63.1%), 'Forestry, open land and water' (20.1%), and 'Residential gardens' (4.9%).
• 6.8% of land within the Green Belt is of developed use.
• 6.1% of land within Flood Zone 3 is of developed use (not accounting for flood defences).
• 5.0% of land within areas at high to medium risk of flooding from rivers and the sea is of developed use (after accounting for flood defences).

source is government land use statistics on gov.uk website

Green belts and green spaces are two very different things. A lot of green belt land is brownfield. It’s important to use the terminology accurately.

Most green belt was designated decades ago when we had less good understanding of what land actually holds environmental value. There is a lot of land not designated as green belt which is FAR more valuable than designated green belt. Continuous review, including release where appropriate, is appropriate IMO.

If we protect all greenfield land (which I assume is what you actually mean and not just designated green belt) then where exactly do you propose we house our population? We would have to force older people out of their large family homes, as they live longer and longer. Meanwhile, the perhaps three children that couple had have gone on to have three kids of their own and want to live somewhere. But building new homes isn’t the answer?! I find it deeply frustrating how (voluntarily, I believe) ignorant so many people are about the depths of the housing crisis facing this country, and the complete lack of realism about what needs to be done to address it.

I’m all for protecting valuable green spaces but it has to go hand in hand with a realistic acceptance of the scale of our housing crisis, the reasons for that and the uncomfortable decisions that have to be made to actually solve it.

@itsallnewnow this just relates to England. The housing area seems to exclude things like gardens and driveways.

the FT did a piece on this and concluded that it is unlikely that more land is covered by Golf Courses than Housing in England on the basis that:

a) the amount of land occupied by Golf Courses looked to be overstated in the analysis making the assertion,and,
b) the figure that Shelter used for housing includes only the land which actually holds bricks and mortar.

Shelter did not sort hold up their hands on the latter point, though also stated that the “whole point was that if we can devote a similar amount of land to golf as domestic buildings we’re not full.”

You know the financial status of all members of the 128 golf clubs in Surrey? you said there were no members of golf clubs who were tradesmen, now it’s people in receipt of PIP, which is it?

It's actually about the same area given to housing and golf, 1,256 sq km approx. More in Surrey obviously.

@itsallnewnow more land in Surrey is covered by golf courses than houses. I can’t speak for the other counties. I think 8% of all land in England has a building on it. Very little really.

Noone wants, or is suggesting, all of the green belt to be covered in houses. But we have a bloody lot of green fields and not enough houses. We have to build SOMEWHERE and building up cities more and more, and building loads of flats rather than family homes, isn’t the answer.