To think at some point there will be no green spaces left in the UK

[SoBloodyFrustrated]

I have just read this..

Dartmoor National Park have asked Cavanna Homes to prepare a Development Brief for this Allocated site, which lies on the fringe of the village with great views to the Tor.

Dartmoor is so bloody lovely, how long before all our green spaces are taken due to new builds?

A lot of the population increase isn't from births but from immigration (and I'm not anti-immigration). Most people here have 1 or 2 kids on average, or so I was lead to believe. Take our family . I had 1 dc. DP had 3 with exw. Her dp has no dc. No more kids are likely on either side. So that works out as 4 children to 4 adults.

Also, the housing situation has not only arisen due to population increase, but due to an over concentration of business (and therefore jobs) in a few places, and people owning second homes in rural areas, where jobs are fewer and pay lower, meaning locals are effectively out priced.

People only need to own one home! It's disgusting that a minority have more than they need while others struggle to keep a roof over their heads!

that population site is a rehash of this written in 1798 - wasn't true then, isn't now.

All western countries have below have below replacment fertility levels and the world average of 2.55 is barely at replacement rates (between 2-3.3 depending on mortaility rates)here

The global birthrate has been at zero growth for 14 years-I think at about 2 billion. The issue is that we are living longer. ( whether it is possible to persuade people to have fewer children and go into negative growth with all the problems that would cause for the older generation is another question.) Going back to the original question, as others have said, there are vast swathes of green in this country. The population density is the issue.

Gazillions of acres of green space here in Scotland OP. Perhaps you meant England? Or even the South of England.

Myrtle but that percentage which hasn't been developed mainly seems now to comprise moors, fells, dales and anything else over 1200 feet.

YANBU OP. Personally I think the planning system in the UK is awful and hardly working very well, as it encourages mass new build developments of identikit houses which take the community out of villages and towns by sticking them on the edge on vast zoned areas, and make people car dependent. Often there is the bribe of a new school or sports facilities provided by the developers, as if this compensates. Quite often, there is no additional improvements to public transport or even footpaths.

Zoning also encourages land to go to waste as developers buy it up to sit on it to wait getting planning permission.

There is hardly any self building except by wealthy individuals who can buy plots the price of which is driven up by rarity value. If 20% of all new builds were self build, then people who couldn't afford to buy might find it more affordable.

Green belts are ignored and I am sure bribes and favours are part of getting planning permission in many cases.

We are in green belt and have had a hotel, restaurant and supermarket built almost next door, along with a new build housing estate a few hundred metres away where the green belt ends. No footpath was provided linking all of these, or to the existing communities and no road improvements were made. There is now a permanent traffic jam and quite a few crashes as the road just isn't well designed for the volume of traffic that now uses it.

Sorry, HamletsSister I was actually describing the central belt of Scotland above, but the principle runs true as for England. There is likewise plenty of upland space in Scotland, but since previous planning policies have encouraged over development of the central belt, there are no jobs and not much infrastructure there to enable people to live in say East Sutherland or rural inland Caithness.

I wouldn't take anything on wiki seriously if I was you. The UN's monst current document says this:

^Projections recently issued by the United Na- tions suggest that world population by 2050 could reach 8.9 billion, but in alternative scenarios could be as high as 10.6 billion or as low as 7.4 billion. What will population trends be like beyond 2050? No one really knows. Any demographic projec- tions, if they go 100, 200, or 300 years into the future, are little more than guesses. Societies change considerably over hundreds of years—as one can readily see if one looks back at where the world was in 1900, or 1800, or 1700. Demo- graphic behaviour over such long time spans, like behaviour in many spheres of life, is largely un- predictable.
Nevertheless, this report presents projections of world population, and even of the populations of individual countries, over the next 300 years. Given the inherent impossibility of such an exer- cise, these projections have a special character. They are not forecasts.^

UN Population to 2300

Basically the whole situation is unpredictable but doesn't mean we shouldn't plan ahead.

Portofino Revisited There does seem to a particular mentality in the UK where you need to have a house with a garden. Apartments/multi family housing is much more common on the continent. Much of the Netherlands is built in what is effectively a huge flood plain. Maybe there are lessons to be learned

The Netherlands planning policies show that it is possible to do things better in an even higher population density. Its so rural in parts of the Netherlands even despite this, but their thinking is so far ahead of planning policy in the UK.

Building a sustainable environment isn't just about population though, it's about how we treat the planet and it's resources whilst we're here.

I'm not a tree hugger honestly

Agreed LesMis but the OP says "UK" and I live in a place where MORE development is part of planning policy and new builds are positively encouraged. Yes, jobs are an issue although more and more people seem to have found ways of living remotely and being connected via the internet. Hopefully, this trend will continue as, up here in the Wild West, we are very much in the more the merrier gang!

round here they don't seem to have much trouble finding land for million pound gated communities yet when someone suggests building social housing estates on green belt land there is an uproar.

I am making huge assumptions here, but it always seems that the people who whine about loss of green spaces don't actually live in the countryside. Probably you worry because you don't want your nice little rural holiday destinations to change.

However, those of us who live and work in those nice little rural holiday destinations are mostly desperate for more housing to be built. It's a massive problem in the Lake District - almost all of the national park authority members don't live in the national park, and are completely anti any development that might make it easier for the indigenous local population to live and work there.

"round here they don't seem to have much trouble finding land for million pound gated communities yet when someone suggests building social housing estates on green belt land there is an uproar."

^this! Same here. People who bought their homes back when they were sensible prices are the worst culprits, they object to affordable builds and it really angers me. How selfish and greedy! All because they don't want their already over inflated priced property to devalue.

There's a lot more countryside than houses round here. I'd like some more housing, please, not less

I am making huge assumptions here, but it always seems that the people who whine about loss of green spaces don't actually live in the countryside.

I thought a lot of it was retired people (who don't need the jobs) or rich sorts with second homes in these places. Then they cry about their local post offices and facilities closing since they aren't economically viable since not enough people live there.

Settlements have expanded and new settlements have been created for the entirety of human history, until the population stops increasing there's non reason for it to stop (I do also think something needs to be done about population growth).

I think the pp that said density is the problem. Tagging onto current towns causes massive wildlife problems. We are at a very sensitive stage with wildlife, bees, birds, insects, hedgehogs, owls are under threats by these ridiculous developments with tiny gardens. Wildlife needs pathways between gardens to create bigger territory not big fences and tiny gardens so they can't create the big territories needed.
Once the wildlife goes, we are in real real trouble

if you are in an aeroplane it is amazing how much is green even in southeast away from london kent and surry are mostly green from above

why should nimbyism prevail why should new families have to live in small houses with no gardens or on reclaimed factory sites, it seems that those that enjoy livign in rural England do not want more peope to join them, oh they should live in suburbs ex- factory brownfield sites etc

recently it was said that new builds in the UK were some of the smallest in europe in terms of square metres

rather than build huge new estates they should consider expanding a village by maybe 5-10% then maybe the village schools and pubs would not close and could welcome new families rather than the prices ensuring that it was only the wealthy that can live there

the UK has plenty of space perhaps not enough to be self sufficient in food but there is no way that any time soon we will literally run out of space

obviously space is at a premium in inner cities and high rise maybe the answer but there is no need when building where there is plenty of space to force 15 houses per acre when it could be spaced out more at 8-10 per acre make everyone's enviroment nicer and would help with water drainage etc

but we must stop building on flood plains without considering where water is going to go

When the plane lands at Gatwick it seems like the uk is 95% green

article by Chris Packham about habitat loss relentless industrialisation of the landscape means that from the air, yes all looks lovely and lush but in reality lots of wildlife really struggling

damnautocorrect Totally agree.

eg cuckoo not heard from my parents garden (edge of a socking great wood in the Welsh borders) for decades

It will become our not so green and not so pleasant land if we don't plan properly.

Where I am in the SW, about 40% of the local accommodation is under occupied 2nd homes and summer B&bs.

Local people just can't afford to live here.

The nearest neighbouring town (population 2000 is building about 500 homes, which is huge, but I cannot see who will buy them as there's no work.

It's a bizarre state of affairs because tourism whilst important economically, isn't the most important industry and recent local plans and reports highlight that increasing tourism (including B&bs and holiday lets) will actually cause more damage to the local economy and environment.

Some villages have already reached saturation and are utterly unaffordable for locals, meaning local provisions (schools, doctors, shops etc) are closing leaving fewer and fewer places to go and build a life.

It's a land grab by the rich which drives it.

So whilst I don't see green spaces in the desirable locations being overbuilt, the less desirable but important green spaces around are being overbuilt.

Billy's comments up thread were bang on.

Damnautocorrect I think the pp that said density is the problem. Tagging onto current towns causes massive wildlife problems. We are at a very sensitive stage with wildlife, bees, birds, insects, hedgehogs, owls are under threats by these ridiculous developments with tiny gardens. Wildlife needs pathways between gardens to create bigger territory not big fences and tiny gardens so they can't create the big territories needed. Once the wildlife goes, we are in real real trouble

I couldn't agree more. And the other aspect is that there doesn't seem to be any studies into the social effects on people of living in new build housing estates.