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?

YANBUnot in the south. Where we live is gorgeousand under threat. What is a huge problem is the growing light pollution, with all the adverse effects on wildlife and sleep patterns.

Immigration does contribute about to about a third of the requirement for new houses, but you are not allowed to say that on MM, even if, like me, you are a child of an immigrant, because it's 'racist', or so I was told I was being when I pointed this out.

I imagine that the countryside I can still just about enjoy in my local area will mainly be gone by the time my children have children. Is this acceptable? I am not sure. Does someone's right to a home trump future generations' 'right' to enjoy their native landscapes? I think this is a tricky ethical question.

I regularly fly from the SW to NE of the UK. Until you have actually SEEN all the green on that journey you would think we were being concreted over !!

And if you land at Gatwick at night, you will spot the light pollution. Where I live, if you drive over the Downs you see what looks like a sprawling US suburb. It's actually a market town, with another village close-by, with street after street of acid-orange street lights, linked to other towns.

YANBU

I just can't envisage what the country will look like in 30/50 years time. Pretty much paved over, I would hazard a guess at.

I don't think it's racist at all to bring immigration into this. Of course immigration is adding to the problem. The government know this and are failing to act upon it. It's all well and good inviting people but we have to be able to support them. There are a lot of immigrants who will enter and be able to afford housing yet there will be many more who will need assistance. Like existing UK residents they will be in the queue fighting for affordable accommodation.

Same problems apply with public transport and healthcare. So basically they have been prepared to increase the population but not cater for it.

More like, it'll be wealthy people near green space and everyone else crammed into slums, just as it was years ago.

How much of all that green land we fly over can realistically be built on? How much of it is farmland/flood land/fracking sites etc.

i do think that there needs to be more Urban regeneration - compulsory purchase orders for neglected properties and a big tax on second homes that aren't used for rental, or don't have a certain % of occupation if holiday lets. To me it is very wrong if a family is priced out of a village say, where half the houses lay idle out of holiday seasons.

Lessmissabs your right, people were and are naturally happier with space round them. Take the 1930's developments, all thought out villages. With shops, drs, parks, big gardens big driveways. That's how new builds should be. Even maisonettes then, front and rear gardens.
That's how families should live.
I think of it like driving on the m25, people tailgate sit in the outside lane don't move over as this is 'my land'. Because there's too many cars on that bit. Get past Luton on the m1 and people drive sensibly, move over don't tailgate. Bit more space, more relaxation people are happier.

I feel incredibly strongly about the wildlife side, I just don't know how or what we can do as the little people to change it or stop it. Russell brand on newsnight made a reference to it too.

Just realised my first sentence lived upto my name!!!
People are naturally happier with space

Like you damnautocorrect I am passionate about wildlife and it's environment. Unfortunately I am often shot down on this because people believe they come first. I am of the opinion that we share this earth and how we live should not endanger another. If we plan things properly there is no reason why any person or animal cannot have the space they need.

Entirely agree Porto. Sometimes when I walk through our village on a winter afternoon when it's getting dark, there is house after house completely dark and empty. Weekenders and holiday lets. More annoyingly, a farmhouse has just got planning permission to be turned into business use. So that's another potential home gone. Then there's the bit of land where the couple got divorced and are contesting one another: two potential houses: their old home and the bit of land they were going to build on. And so on and so on. Most of the weekend 'cottages' are about twice the size of the house I live in. The people who own them are very nice, but it's not right.

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 think it's the opposite. It's often politicians in London, who've never lived in the countryside, who decide it should be built on.

They should instead be building on brownfield sites, and renovating some of the 200,000 empty homes in Britain.

We do still have quite a lot of green spaces at the moment. But the trend is for the countryside and all that goes with the natural world to disappear. This will be slow, but it's happening nonetheless. Once nature has gone, you can't get it back.

We shouldn't come first randy, your right.
Without the wildlife we can't exist. We are all part of this one big Eco system, we can't just piss all over it as our needs are greater. We need them

Building on 1 per cent of the green sites doesn't sound much. But clearly, if you take 1 per cent of our current green space each year and build on it, there will be none left in 100 years.

I may sound silly but I can't see why we need to keep building on new sites (I get the economic benefit) but like others have said there's plenty of sites / that need redeveloping. Also, the new houses are sold at the current market rate. So how does that help? It doesn't bring the local house prices down

Does someone's right to a home trump future generations' 'right' to enjoy their native landscapes? I think this is a tricky ethical question.

How is it tricky? How is it even a question? Would we tell a family they have to sleep in the street because to have a house would spoil someone elses view from their patio?

Does someone's right to a home trump future generations' 'right' to enjoy their native landscapes? I think this is a tricky ethical question.

It's only tricky to those who have never struggled to afford a decent home themselves. Everyone has a right to access a dignified place to live in. If you believe in saving the environment so vehemently, share your home with the homeless.

It's not about a 'right' to enjoy the landscape but to sustain the landscape/area and the wildlife within it. There needs to be a balance otherwise you risk our eco system as someone pointed out up thread.

nature is pretty good to adapting to their environment, we need affordable homes for people and yes that trumps the green belt.

there is such an attitude of nimby around here where i live, they are selling off tiny scraps of land; old playgrounds and schools to build estates but some of the local villages are surrounded by acres of land.

nature is pretty good to adapting to their environment

Not really. We're part of nature too and we don't appear to be adapting to our overcrowded environment. That's why we're on here whinging about it. Why should we encroach on wildlife's environment to fulfil our needs and expect them to adapt. Yes, we do need housing but the selfish attitude of 'we need housing so sod everything else' isn't really acceptable. More thought and planning is required.

well unlike animals who need minimal resources we have people who want more room, more cars, more square footage

nope humans do not need to have massive country estates with acres of hectares while the proles live shoved next to each other

the majorty of farm land is owned by the crown isn't it? lol and probably the church

Since the planning laws were changed, almost every green space around my town has been earmarked for development. We need more affordable housing, but that is not what is being built. Its all "executive homes"
The roads are already chocka, the schools are over subscribed, the actual open space is already tiny compared to the population.
These developments are planned with no regard for the quality of life of the people who already live here, the infrastructure to support 500 extra families, and the fact that public transport is already dire.
If they were building council homes, I would support some of it, but they are not.
It's not done in the name of more housing, it's done in the name of making a few developers, and their pals on the council, rich, at the expense of everyone who lives here.

It's not done in the name of more housing, it's done in the name of making a few developers, and their pals on the council, rich, at the expense of everyone who lives here.

So true.

our local council is getting a big handout from central government for building more housing. it's all being crammed into the same small area though