Labour plans to plow over green belt

[brujarosada]

I despise the Tories.

I can't possibly vote for a party that would affirmatively plan to destroy designated green space.

What to do?

Yes I feel the same. Can't vote for the middle roaders either. Argh.

Plough. Plough. Plough.

Have you ever flown over the UK and seen exactly how much green space there is? There is more land used for private golf courses (an elitist, exclusive sport if there ever was one) than for housing in this country!

It’s tricky, I live right by some green belt and if they build on it, it would take housing right up to the motorway, but at the same time the housing situation in this country is utterly ridiculous and Im not really convinced that there are enough brown field sites, so I guess I carry on voting Labour, despite various reservations.

The green belt designation includes a lot of land that is not ‘green’ e.g. car parks, disused garages and refuse plants. Under the green belt rules, building houses to replace these industrial sites can be rejected as they are ‘green belt’ and instead houses are built on fields which have not the green belt designation.

Building on this ‘grey’ belt makes a lot of sense to me. And essential to having our children able to buy homes and start their own lives.

Sorry. I'm originally from a country where we spell it 'plow'. And where there are no green belts. It made me so happy to move to a place where some aspects of preserving green space were apparently sacrosanct.

Plough up the green belt you say .....

Keir Starmer told Labour Party Conference: “It’s a future with more beautiful cities. More prosperous towns. New parks, new green spaces, new public services – all aligned with our plan.
“And conference, sometimes the old Labour ideas are right for new times. So where there are good jobs. Where there is good infrastructure. Where there is good land for affordable homes. Then we will get shovels in the ground. Cranes in the sky.
“And build the next generation of Labour new towns.
“And no, this doesn’t mean we’re tearing up the green-belt.
“Labour is the party that protects our green spaces. No party fights harder for our environment. We created the national parks. Created the green-belt in the first place.”

It really isn't elitist or exclusive. Most standard clubs are full to the brim with working class tradespeople and retirees.

Not in Surrey they aren't, although retirees I grant you - mostly wealthy ones.

I would imagine there are some very wealthy builders and trades people in Surrey! and how on earth would you know the status of every golf club member across the county? there are 128 clubs! I’m pretty sure the odd working class person has sneaked their way in despite their lowly status……

What? You honestly think there's more square ft for golf than housing across the whole
Country?!

Because I know many of the members of golf clubs in Surrey, and the jobs that they used to do! Not many members in them who were/are on PIP in Croydon. More likely to be the former CEO of Adecco or Hays

@itsallnewnow more land in Surrey is covered by golf courses than houses. I can’t speak for the other counties. I think 8% of all land in England has a building on it. Very little really.

Noone wants, or is suggesting, all of the green belt to be covered in houses. But we have a bloody lot of green fields and not enough houses. We have to build SOMEWHERE and building up cities more and more, and building loads of flats rather than family homes, isn’t the answer.

It's actually about the same area given to housing and golf, 1,256 sq km approx. More in Surrey obviously.

You know the financial status of all members of the 128 golf clubs in Surrey? you said there were no members of golf clubs who were tradesmen, now it’s people in receipt of PIP, which is it?

@itsallnewnow this just relates to England. The housing area seems to exclude things like gardens and driveways.

the FT did a piece on this and concluded that it is unlikely that more land is covered by Golf Courses than Housing in England on the basis that:

a) the amount of land occupied by Golf Courses looked to be overstated in the analysis making the assertion,and,
b) the figure that Shelter used for housing includes only the land which actually holds bricks and mortar.

Shelter did not sort hold up their hands on the latter point, though also stated that the “whole point was that if we can devote a similar amount of land to golf as domestic buildings we’re not full.”

Green belts and green spaces are two very different things. A lot of green belt land is brownfield. It’s important to use the terminology accurately.

Most green belt was designated decades ago when we had less good understanding of what land actually holds environmental value. There is a lot of land not designated as green belt which is FAR more valuable than designated green belt. Continuous review, including release where appropriate, is appropriate IMO.

If we protect all greenfield land (which I assume is what you actually mean and not just designated green belt) then where exactly do you propose we house our population? We would have to force older people out of their large family homes, as they live longer and longer. Meanwhile, the perhaps three children that couple had have gone on to have three kids of their own and want to live somewhere. But building new homes isn’t the answer?! I find it deeply frustrating how (voluntarily, I believe) ignorant so many people are about the depths of the housing crisis facing this country, and the complete lack of realism about what needs to be done to address it.

I’m all for protecting valuable green spaces but it has to go hand in hand with a realistic acceptance of the scale of our housing crisis, the reasons for that and the uncomfortable decisions that have to be made to actually solve it.

As at April 2022:

• 8.7% of land in England is of developed use, with 91.1% of non-developed use and the remaining 0.2% being vacant.
• The top 3 land use groups were 'Agriculture' (63.1%), 'Forestry, open land and water' (20.1%), and 'Residential gardens' (4.9%).
• 6.8% of land within the Green Belt is of developed use.
• 6.1% of land within Flood Zone 3 is of developed use (not accounting for flood defences).
• 5.0% of land within areas at high to medium risk of flooding from rivers and the sea is of developed use (after accounting for flood defences).

source is government land use statistics on gov.uk website

These are defined as brownfield sites , and so do not come into the definition of green belt, no matter what their location. A lot of brownfield sites are unpopular with developers because the clearance and possibly decontamination costs can be quite high.

A nice field or a wood , though…..

No they’re not,

Please could you point out where I wrote (not said) that no tradesmen were members of golf clubs, because I can't find it?

We have a low % of land classed as 'developed' - only 8.7%

To build only 1.5m more homes, we'd be looking at a tiny fractional increase in that %. Much will go on brownfield anyway.

I think it is basically irrational to be bothered about that change, which is way better than Tory projects like approving open cast mines, allowing change of use for other damaging developments, and pumping shit into rivers etc. etc.

The Tories want to allow property developers to pollute more. The Tories want to expand road building on the greenbelt.

Are you incapable of reading your own posts back? You replied to another poster who said golf clubs were not elitist and were full of trades people and you said “not in Surrey they aren’t”

@shoeawsome Thank you for providing the actual wording behind the story. It's a good balance to the OP.

Golf courses are terrible for the environment. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/07/17/golf-is-a-giant-board-game-damaging-the-planet-time-for-it-to-go

The words of the speech don't actually say much of anything. I'm not comforted by them.