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.

Who owns this farmland, are they big companies or 'farmers', they agree to sell this to the developers?

@HostaCentral 100% and some more.

Government has increased housing targets. My local council can’t demonstrate a 5 year supply although there is argument as to whether this is true or not. My local council is Labour controlled and the Planning department doesn’t put up any sort of fight. The Head of Planning seems to be in favour of every new development. They are all new estates with a small corner for social housing. Thousands of new builds. Also the ridiculous concept of grey belt which of course developers will see as an open door.

I never even heard of grey belt years ago

Biodiversity benefit is increasing number of trees, creating habitats, planting, ponds and so on.

If the empty properties were used we wouldn't need so many new builds. We have ridiculous build targets based on what? So many new builds around me aren't selling as they are all around the £750k mark so way of reach of the majority. The developers have to include affordable housing and then don't without consequence.

There is no reason to build on greenbelt land unless it has been left farrow for over 10 years.

It's an issue with the lack of infrastructure which doesn't increase with the number of houses. The GPs/Schools/hospitals are creaking along with utilities. We need to sort these out before concreting over the countryside.

The labour government introduced it in the last update of the national planning policy framework.
They also increased the housing targets for nearly all Councils which means councils find it hard to resist plans for new housing.
Looking at their latest proposed revisions to the NPPF it's going to become almost impossible to resist most development.

It's disgusting to destroy trees and plants on green space.

Creatures deserve to have their habitats maintained. Greenery also protects air quality, lowers ground temperature and keeps waterways from being polluted.

Humans need to consume less.
We are not more important than species of native birds, animals and flora.
Immigration should slow down to a number that can be housed sustainably into the future.. ie number of immigrants = deaths less births.

The Political Party that can control immigration will be voted in.

It’s biodiversity net gain not biodiversity benefit.

It requires the habitat lost to be replaced plus 10% of its value. Using a national spreadsheet with various values and formulas for each habitat type and its condition. It’s been required for a couple of years now.

And some wildlife IS protected but licences can be granted to move or translocate it elsewhere. Such as bats. Get a licence and creation of new roosts and the old ones can be removed out of season:

Same for many other species.

It all isn’t illegal to remove hedgerows or trees at any time of the year. However any developer doing so without a nesting bird survey is risking it because there is a good chance they might commit an offence ans it IS illegal to damage or destroy an active nest and they need to be able to prove they did not.

Disturbance is seperate and only applies to certain species of bird.

People also need to realise that brownfield land ca have significant wildlife and habitat value - often far more than greenbelt monoculture. There is at least one habitat that can only be found on brownfield land and it supports a variety of species both botanical and faunal.

No one I know is having multiple kids, Most of my generation, now edging on 70 years old, had one when they were over 40, if they could. So they could afford the costs, and now we're 70, we are shunting every last penny we think we can let go down a generation. I appreciate it wont help if your parents didn't prosper during their most productive years, but my DC (only one because that was what I could afford then) has just had a six-figure sum to buy a starter home outright.

Not many people are having so many kids around us. I doubt we're at replacement rate.

Um @scatterolight when was the last time you picked up a newspaper and read beyond the Showbiz section?

In a walking group I was in for a few months there was a guy who was a qualified ecologist. He spent his life assisting developers fight for planning permission. He said that if developers really wanted to build on Green belt and the numbers stacked up and were profitable enough they could fight it and win pretty much every time.

Yes especially with compliant councils like mine where the Head of Planning seems to be an advocate for the developers.

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.
Would you prefer to live in a nice, possibly more expensive area, even if it was previously greenbelt land, or in a scruffy town centre? Also, the developers will get more money for the houses on the greenbelt land than they would on a former brownfield.

That's the case for the (former) village that I grew up in, anyway. They've built around 1,000 houses on former farmland and a couple of ex-mills in the few years I've been away, with more planned.

A massive factory site that was demolished years ago in our town has around 400 houses being built on it right now and that is preferable.