It is a wonder the government do not cover the whole country in concrete. Not enough people care for the countryside. Breaks my heart to see our glorious farm land disappear at such an alarming rate.
I spoke to someone a couple of weeks ago who wanted to convert and old farmbuilding on their land. Council said no, they then applied for a demolition order because it was unsafe. Granted!!!!!
Councils sometimes would rather see it fall into the ground than let it be "converted"
I have no problem with 'poor quality' green belt land being turned into 'high quality' housing. Done sensitively, ecologically, and with good public transport links of course.
Did you know that brownfield land is often more biodiverse than (sterile, agricultural) greenbelt?
We also desperately need small pockets of affordable, appropriately designed housing built onto existing rural villages. Sadly the NIMBYs are turning the countryside into a giant retirement home though.
To answer the original question 'are trees more important than houses in greenbelt land' though, I'd say 'yes' which is why I think any such redevelopment should provide a net increase in native woodland, which is good for wildlife and for blending in new houses with the landscape.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour".
The biggest problem is that this Goverment and Labour do not see housing as a priority , I say that because the coalition down grade the Housing Ministers position by not being a member of The Cabinet
The coalitions has had a big success with Help to Buy
it is a long way down the Politician priority because the opion pols say so , unfortunately it is how you ask the question
I agree with WillDB about new housing having trees and other wildlife built into the plans. The area I grew up in was basically a village, now 40/50 years on the place is totally unrecognisable. They are now building a small group of very large houses in a site next to the area where my family home was. It's involved cutting into a steep hill at the back, and the houses are practically sitting on the main road at the front. The gardens look tiny as far as I can see, and, like many of the new developments, the internal 'roads' are being done with those brick paviours. It will be very sterile. The entire area is houses, houses and more houses yet the schools are full to bursting and the main shopping centre is too small to cope. It's all very sad to see.
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Some interesting "stats" here, but - like lots of things - it's extremely difficult to identify the whole picture. Some of the comments seem to imply that the need for more housing is driven mainly by the results of mass immigration, but I think it's worth pointing out that the social/economic scene in the UK has changed a great deal during my lifetime for Brits - i.e.
People are living longer than ever before and are for the most part able to continue to live an independent life in their own home, thus not "freeing up" properties which would have been inherited in the past by their middle-aged children.
People no longer share housing in the way that they used to amongst family members - in that there are very few properties nowawdays where two or even three generations (adult) are living there.
Young people seem to feel a need to leave their parents' home and set up an independent lifestyle before they are really in a position financially to achieve this, hence the increased need for rental properties for younger people. In the past - only a generation or so ago - you didn't leave home until you were married and even then you'd saved up for the day when you could/would "fly the nest".
Gone are the days when the norm was to stay in the area where you grew up, work-wise. Many families - people in their 30's & 40's - simply have to move house because the breadwinner's job demands this, often in connection with a promotion or similar which they cannot in reality refuse. I meet people like this on a daily basis during the course of my own work.
People's expectations - not "ambitions" any more - are different now. They aren't prepared to wait for anything, but "must have" everything straight away!. You might be surprised at some of the comments I hear about kitchens for example. There might be a perfectly workable kitchen in a property I'm showing them round, but as it isn't to their own taste they often say "I'd simply HAVE to rip this kitchen out", when they don't in fact have to do that at all, any more than I HAVE to spend £50K on a new car. Until people come to terms with the difference between expectations and ambitions ref housing, the problem will simply be exacerbated.
HyperC, I was painting in a very upmarket house near Maida Vale, London a few years back. The house next door was having a huge kitchen ripped out; I asked the workmen why, when it seemed pretty new. The answer was; the tenants are changing, when you pay £4000 per week rent you expect a new kitchen - the one they were taking out was 1 year old.
if you investigate uk's empty house problem you will find that a huge proportion are being held as investments by out of country money. apparently uk tax laws make it very attractive to own the property and not care whether it is occupied or not. the same laws make it desirable for rich foreigners-saudi princes, russian oligarchs and such , to buy london property and leave it vacant. a lot of social pressures and not just in the uk, are being caused by the quite astounding wealth of the world's top one tenth of one percent-that is still 7 million people-and the fact that they all want property in the desireable places. that said-yes trees are more important.
Good point there about the terraced houses in Northern areas - however the option to renovate houses like these isn't an economical one. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that the sort of housing people want these days isn't the same as it used to be.
Many of the terraces were built around 100+ years ago and basic issues such as damp-proof courses, drainage, indoor sanitation etc which would meet present-day standards etc didn't exist. They've probably got lead pipes as well........ To sort out all these things via renovation simply doesn't make sense - in economic terms - as it's cheaper and quicker to demolish and rebuild from scratch to meet modern building regs., and to create dwellings which people actually want. No use renovating when the final result is not only more expensive to achieve but also doesn't appeal or fit in with current requirements and actual needs.
There's also a change in the average age of the population now - many many more pensioners living than ever before, and they need housing but not jobs. It's a bit of a myth that the housing market is kept going solely by first-time buyers. At a guess, I'd say that less than 5% of purchasers round here fit that category - certainly so in the area where I live and work (for an estate agent for the past 20+ years). The government's "income" from stamp duty, for example, probably consists - for the most part - from transactions made by people who are either "up-sizing" or "downsizing", rather than buying for the first time.
Posts
It is a wonder the government do not cover the whole country in concrete. Not enough people care for the countryside. Breaks my heart to see our glorious farm land disappear at such an alarming rate.
I spoke to someone a couple of weeks ago who wanted to convert and old farmbuilding on their land. Council said no, they then applied for a demolition order because it was unsafe. Granted!!!!!
Councils sometimes would rather see it fall into the ground than let it be "converted"
Did you know that brownfield land is often more biodiverse than (sterile, agricultural) greenbelt?
We also desperately need small pockets of affordable, appropriately designed housing built onto existing rural villages. Sadly the NIMBYs are turning the countryside into a giant retirement home though.
To answer the original question 'are trees more important than houses in greenbelt land' though, I'd say 'yes' which is why I think any such redevelopment should provide a net increase in native woodland, which is good for wildlife and for blending in new houses with the landscape.
The biggest problem is that this Goverment and Labour do not see housing as a priority , I say that because the coalition down grade the Housing Ministers position by not being a member of The Cabinet
The coalitions has had a big success with Help to Buy
it is a long way down the Politician priority because the opion pols say so , unfortunately it is how you ask the question
I agree with WillDB about new housing having trees and other wildlife built into the plans. The area I grew up in was basically a village, now 40/50 years on the place is totally unrecognisable. They are now building a small group of very large houses in a site next to the area where my family home was. It's involved cutting into a steep hill at the back, and the houses are practically sitting on the main road at the front. The gardens look tiny as far as I can see, and, like many of the new developments, the internal 'roads' are being done with those brick paviours. It will be very sterile. The entire area is houses, houses and more houses yet the schools are full to bursting and the main shopping centre is too small to cope. It's all very sad to see.
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
Some interesting "stats" here, but - like lots of things - it's extremely difficult to identify the whole picture. Some of the comments seem to imply that the need for more housing is driven mainly by the results of mass immigration, but I think it's worth pointing out that the social/economic scene in the UK has changed a great deal during my lifetime for Brits - i.e.
People are living longer than ever before and are for the most part able to continue to live an independent life in their own home, thus not "freeing up" properties which would have been inherited in the past by their middle-aged children.
People no longer share housing in the way that they used to amongst family members - in that there are very few properties nowawdays where two or even three generations (adult) are living there.
Young people seem to feel a need to leave their parents' home and set up an independent lifestyle before they are really in a position financially to achieve this, hence the increased need for rental properties for younger people. In the past - only a generation or so ago - you didn't leave home until you were married and even then you'd saved up for the day when you could/would "fly the nest".
Gone are the days when the norm was to stay in the area where you grew up, work-wise. Many families - people in their 30's & 40's - simply have to move house because the breadwinner's job demands this, often in connection with a promotion or similar which they cannot in reality refuse. I meet people like this on a daily basis during the course of my own work.
People's expectations - not "ambitions" any more - are different now. They aren't prepared to wait for anything, but "must have" everything straight away!. You might be surprised at some of the comments I hear about kitchens for example. There might be a perfectly workable kitchen in a property I'm showing them round, but as it isn't to their own taste they often say "I'd simply HAVE to rip this kitchen out", when they don't in fact have to do that at all, any more than I HAVE to spend £50K on a new car. Until people come to terms with the difference between expectations and ambitions ref housing, the problem will simply be exacerbated.
HyperC, I was painting in a very upmarket house near Maida Vale, London a few years back. The house next door was having a huge kitchen ripped out; I asked the workmen why, when it seemed pretty new. The answer was; the tenants are changing, when you pay £4000 per week rent you expect a new kitchen - the one they were taking out was 1 year old.
if you investigate uk's empty house problem you will find that a huge proportion are being held as investments by out of country money. apparently uk tax laws make it very attractive to own the property and not care whether it is occupied or not. the same laws make it desirable for rich foreigners-saudi princes, russian oligarchs and such , to buy london property and leave it vacant. a lot of social pressures and not just in the uk, are being caused by the quite astounding wealth of the world's top one tenth of one percent-that is still 7 million people-and the fact that they all want property in the desireable places. that said-yes trees are more important.
Good point there about the terraced houses in Northern areas - however the option to renovate houses like these isn't an economical one. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that the sort of housing people want these days isn't the same as it used to be.
Many of the terraces were built around 100+ years ago and basic issues such as damp-proof courses, drainage, indoor sanitation etc which would meet present-day standards etc didn't exist. They've probably got lead pipes as well........ To sort out all these things via renovation simply doesn't make sense - in economic terms - as it's cheaper and quicker to demolish and rebuild from scratch to meet modern building regs., and to create dwellings which people actually want. No use renovating when the final result is not only more expensive to achieve but also doesn't appeal or fit in with current requirements and actual needs.
There's also a change in the average age of the population now - many many more pensioners living than ever before, and they need housing but not jobs. It's a bit of a myth that the housing market is kept going solely by first-time buyers. At a guess, I'd say that less than 5% of purchasers round here fit that category - certainly so in the area where I live and work (for an estate agent for the past 20+ years). The government's "income" from stamp duty, for example, probably consists - for the most part - from transactions made by people who are either "up-sizing" or "downsizing", rather than buying for the first time.