Developers building on greenbelt land

[smallglassbottle]

In my area, developers are building on greenbelt land, cutting down trees and bulldozing hedgerows etc. Who is going to be able to afford these houses with the employment situation looking so poor, mainly through ai, wage stagnation etc.?

Why don't local councils sell town centre land for housing development seeing as many high streets are dying? I feel sad for the wildlife and trees.

There's a long and detailed article in the FT today about rezoning some of London's golf courses for housing, which sounded dreadful abridged for radio, but actually makes quite a lot of sense when read in full. One idea is to cut the courses from 18 holes to nine, and build on the rest. These are mostly owned by the metropolitan authority and have quite small memberships; some are loss-making. Doing this is predicted to release enough hectares to build circa 60,000 homes. There are over 4,200 hectares of golf courses (the size of Brent) within London.

You do realise wildlife isn't protected? It gets displaced and is forced to find other places, many of which will be unsuitable.

Sounds reasonable.

Golf courses are generally not very bio-diverse, which is another point in the proposal's favour -- IMO.

I agree.

But the specific green belt we are talking about is what the entire op hinges on

Turns out that some green belt areas are being developed because they’re “poor quality”

also - I’d be curious what is being done in parallel with the development.

So it’s relevant. But you won’t say because apparently it gives you away but means we are entirely reliant on your subjective view of the situation

Regardless of what obfuscation has taken place in order to get this development up and running, I'm still allowed a subjective opinion. Do you think I'm just going to shrug and say "fair enough guvnor" if the area is revealed as being an amazing development area and is entirely suitable for lots of development? People are still allowed an opinion aren't they?

The development is a major one in the area. It's very expansive. I am still allowed to feel sad about the wildlife. I'm not one of the plastic grass brigade. We wouldn't have moved here if we'd known about this development. I'm giving my experience of living in the middle of major development that's all.

Sure you’re allowed a subjective opinion

But no one can really give any relevant response to you opinion / thread without knowing the detail re the green belt in question 🤷‍♀️

They built 7500 houses in my town on a mixture of brownfield and open countryside, in return several acres were donated for a nature reserve protected from development. We still need more houses though as people move in, their children grow up and more housing is needed. No shortage of employment here hence popular. Looks like several field on the edge of the town are the next for development but we need a dual carriageway first, that’s my objection to development

Yeah, don't worry about it. Even if you knew you couldn't fix it.

Funny we are told young people aren't having children, so why do we need all this housing?

The greater issue is the designation of greenbelt to grey belt where only a very small area of the designated site can be deemed to be not greenbelt. Hard Paddington stare at the Residents' Association Councillors in Epsom and Ewell. Really looking forward to 7th May and hoping many other residents will put their cross in a different box.

It's important because we're all having so many kids. Fertility through the roof - 4, 5, 6 kids each. Where are they all going to live?

One of the problems is that removing land from the greenbelt and getting approval for housing is a multi stage multi year process. Round us there is a lot of ‘greenbelt’ development taking place. The proposal to change the greenbelt boundaries was made in 2017, there was a planning inquiry in 2019, the boundary changes were approved in 2020 and then the planning applications started being made. The first was approved in 2022. Building work is just starting and a lot of local residents are furious because they weren’t told.

They were told, but didn’t realise the impact of the proposal to amend green belt boundaries.

i have no desire to “fix it”

as I would wager this green belt has been left to rot.

Developers can build on green belt land if it is taken out of the green belt in the Local Plan. Problem is most people ignore what their local council is proposing, even when they hold public consultations. It can take years to go through the process, so the first thing people see is the bulldozers.

The Labour government introduced the nebulous concept of "grey belt" and surprise surprise, developers claim all green belt land is acutually grey belt and apply to build on it, with a high success rate at the government don't want to fail to build the 1.5million homes they promised to build by the end of their term in office. If we need this many homes and who can afford to buy them is another matter.
All new housing development is meant to result in Biodiversity net gain which aims to ensure the natural environment is left in a measurably better state than before. It typically requires developers to deliver a 10% increase in habitat value compared to the original site. In real terms, it is doubtful how you can replace mature habitat and displaced wildlife. Have a look at the Government's National Planning Policy Framework, it sets out all the above and is what local councils have to abide by.

When you say planned do you mean:

• The council has designated the land for housing on the Local Plan
• The developer has submitted/ is planning to submit a planning application for the site
• Planning permission has been granted, in which case it might be worth you looking at the planning application and the approval document to find out if any mitigating measures have been requested, and whether the developer set out the biodiversity benefit in the planning documents.

It's not clear in your posts.
In some places (including the city where I live) town centre properties are being converted to housing (mainly flats), but these buildings owned by private companies - I don’t expect many councils own city centre properties that they could use to ‘build houses’. Plus most people won’t want to live in a city centre flat all their life. They’ll want a house, with some outdoor space, in a suburb or a nice village. There’s enough of a demand for people to keep buying these new properties as they’re built.

It hasn't, it's farmland and fields which are/were cared for.

Again - just taking your very subjective view on it

Right. Whatever.

Sorry what? UK birthrate is below 1.5.

Your're not wrong OP. They built about 50 houses on a pony paddock in our village last year. The 1 beds have sold to a housing association, the rest haven't moved. Some of them are £800,000 for a house with a single garage, one parking space and just enough garden for a rotary washing line.

Compared to older houses in the area, they are terrible value. The developer wouldn't listen to local input that we needed a lot more small houses and no large ones, so he can't say he wasn't advised appropriately.

I know. I can’t get my head around how someone could get that so wrong

Its not new that building takes place on greenbelt, its been happening for at least 15-20 years

I remember when buying this house, or when we were looking in this area, the usaal EA bullshit 'oh they wont build on this greenbelt or that greenbelt' when I knew full well that they can and do build on it

Im not sure why people dont know this or why they're surprised

Ok, let's get detailed. There are currently several thousand, yes thousand, planning proposals in process in and around Woking, Farnham, Leatherhead, Godalming and Guildford. They are already building a couple of thousand flats in central Guildford. Brownfield. Great. The rest are all opportunistic proposals by major builders all on green belt farmland. They are trying to argue that a horse stable counts as previous development, therefore Grey Belt. It's bollocks. None of the sites are in local plans. All local plans being obsolete because Labour increased the housing requirements, based on a back of the fag packet calculation by Angela Raynor. Of the ones already built, not one has had a biodiversity gain, or shops, or doctors or schools. There have been major floor events, estates swimming in shit. The roads are fucked and suprise, suprise, many houses remain unsold because they are expensive and small.

May I also direct you to Wisley Heights. Rejected by the council, overturned by Secretary of State. Brownfield because it was once an RAF base, but in the middle of nowhere. Completely unsustainable. Let's see how many services Taylor Wimpey build. Not

Rant over.