The irony of destroying rural land to build thousands of ‘eco’ homes

[elprup]

As a nation we purport to be seriously concerned about the environment, and yet we routinely destroy thousands of acres of nature and wildlife to replace them with concrete. I’m all for building more housing, but it should be strategic - on brownfield sites, or by converting empty, disused properties (of which there are about a million in England). It should not be at the expense of wildlife and natural habitats. AIBU?

Welcome to 'Hellborne' the 'concrete jungle' that nobody wants

https://mol.im/a/13023767

It's horrific. No more land should be concreted over.
Habitats are needed for wild creatures and plants with little power to fight for themselves.

I applaud the neighbourhood for apposing the development.
Too many humans for the country to support. Clever people should be working out alternative and sustainable housing and water arrangements.

What empty disused buildings? Are you another one who thinks creating totally subpar ‘homes’ in abandoned office blocks is a good idea?
Less than 1.5% of the uk has been developed for residential use, in fact 5% is residential gardens which is significantly higher than the level of construction. The idea that the UK is totally overdeveloped and can’t sustain ecological systems due to housing is nonsense.
Developing brownfield sites on a large scale is impractical, as is converting not fit for purpose buildings into residential homes. You are left with an expensive development project and homes which are not well designed for living in.

yawn- another case of yes we need more housing but not in my backyard. There has to be a balance with the environment yes- but this is a housing crisis!!!! It’s unsustainable and you can’t just keep building up cities and expect people to forever live in ant box flats. Houses need to be built !

Developing brownfield sites is often a problem ironically because of all the environmental standards that have to be met. That type of land was often used for industrial purposes years ago which presents problems of past contamination.

I speak as someone who once lived in a converted office building. It was dire. To convert them properly is incredibly expensive if you want people to have decent homes. And there are loads of other problems.

Once again no one wants to speak about the actual problem which is too many people.

The green fields that those houses are replacing are not natural. They are just as disruptive to the natural state of Hampshire as an eco house is. YABU.

It’s a misconception that development always results in less “nature”. This particular development site looks like it’s on farmland which is unlikely to be supporting many species. Well thought out development could easily increase the wildlife interest in this area (e.g. maintain existing woodlands, add high quality green spaces, add sustainable drainage systems etc). I suspect this is more about people wanting to hold on to their farmland views though, which is a different issue altogether.

It isn't always possible to use brownfield. Government gives each local authority a target of new homes to be built.

Where I live the green belt has started to get eaten up and used for new housing...
one of the fields I rent for horse grazing will be development land one day. It's a shame as it has a real feel of being deep in the country and very very peaceful, completely different feel to the ones either side of it.

Theres an 'eco-house' been built in a tiny village near me. To build the house, they ripped out at least 50 mature oak and beech trees (illegally - they got prosecuted) from a wood. They erected a monstrosity of a house which looks like some sort of prison and is lit up like a Christmas tree day and night. it has artificial turf, outbuildings that look like grand garden sheds, tarmac everywhere and has now put in planning requests to rip out another 10 trees. The lovely hawthorn hedges have been replaced by awful laurel hedges. There are hidious electric gates. But its designed as an eco house so thats OK! I try not to go that way anymore as its upsetting to see the desecration of woodland.

The population of this country will grow by 10% in the next few years due to immigration? Where will people live if no more homes are built?

You can’t have it both ways.

Just watch food prices increase as more and more food will need to be imported if we can't grow it here.

We already import 80% of our food!

Build houses on golf courses.

That percentage doesn’t mean much as it includes the Cairngorms’and other large national parks.

If you live in formerly rural southern England it looks quite different.

Everybody wants more housing, no-one wants it near them

Hellbourne is a disgrace . Locals were promised not a brick would be laid until all funding is in place by Sean Woodward . There would be plenty of infrastructure, shops schools doctors etc etc .
The area has huge traffic problems already and now the changes to M27 junc 10 are not being made . This was to filter traffic away from local roads . The Wickham Dr surgery was not going to be taking wellbourne patients but now they have been told they will .

The project is falling apart at the seams . Social housing numbers will be non existent once developers have made sure it's not profitable to have them .

The whole thing stinks , a rosy picture and too much financial incentives have made sure it got through planning no matter the huge local concerns .

It’s 46%

Hence why people are opposed to so much immigration.

It's not all about racism, it's about practicality.

So large national parks aren’t relevant when it comes to wildlife and nature which the OP is apparently so concerned about? Hmm. Just sounds like another nimby sound bite.

Your percentages are pretty useless as they'll include the huge expanses of land that are impossible to build on, i.e. steep hills/mountains, moors and valleys, flood plains, bogs, forests, etc. I believe those statistics also include land for other purposes that's not actually "built" on but used for other things like railway lines, roads, footpaths, etc.

They also include the active farming land which we'd be insane to build on given how dependant we already are on importing foodstuffs.

How about giving us some figures for percentage of currently unused land that is actually feasible for building upon??

Re office buildings: retrofitting these buildings is hard. I'd prefer to pull them down and build purpose-build apartments there. Urban residents deserve nice housing too. Part of the reason why apartment living has a poor reputation in the UK is because a lot of UK apartments are crap (no balconies, no proper soundproofing etc.); we need to change the narrative and ensure that flats can be great places to live. That means building nice ones with residents in mind.

However, most brownfield land in cities is car-parking space. Realistically, if you want lots of housing built in cities, you need to accept that you are going to lose the ability to drive into the center of most towns without extreme hassle (because the car parking areas will disappear, and because all the new urban residents will, reasonably, want to live in a neighborhood where the atmosphere is pleasant and they can walk and bike safely).

Long-term, that is not too much of an issue, because having a lot of people living densely in the center of towns makes it financially viable for cities to build good public transport.

However, all this will demand a shift in culture. Whether the British are ready for this kind of change remains to be seen. I guess we are about to find out, as the housing situation in the UK is currently at breaking point and something needs to give.

I'm not a NIMBY, and tbh, the houses in the proposed images look nice compared to all the crap that's being build around here by Bellway and David Wilson.

Hedgerows, trees, and cover for wildlife needs to be acted on. It is very disappointing to see they have removed a huge number of trees. I wish they would build around the trees, and remove the ones they 'have' to, rather than destroying it all. There is a new estate near where I live where they removed 1km of mature hedgerow for no real reason, other than to show off the new houses, and to install a drain. They could have installed the drain two metres back. They have now planted a very young hedgerow in its place - it'll take a long time for it to form that kind of wildlife corridor again.

Local infrastructure needs to be thought about, too. Doctor's surgeries, schools, roads, cycling, shops, employment, etc etc. Sadly all these things are promised but never amount to anything.

Do you know the site? It is just off the M27. It has a train line running right by it. It's not some bucolic untouched bit of rural bliss.
It's basically a suburb of Fareham.

There is a massive golf course just north of it - now that is a waste of space. Chemically treated greens , a few sparse trees - basically an ecological desert. But people who drive there in their big cars and have probably astroturfed their front lawn would be up in arms about the "trees" if you tried to build on that golf course.

The people living near don't care about the trees, they just worry their house prices might be impacted.
Would be nice if they added a train station at Knowle as part of the development given the line runs right by it but it's probably too small to justify the cost atm