According to last week's Chron........

which i just happened to see.

The council are releasing more land (including green belt) to build new houses on.

Good or bad idea..... undecided myself at the moment...... leaning towards it being a good idea though

Thoughts?

 

Don't think green belt should be built on, brown belt only in my opinion. We are only a very small island and we can't keep cramming people in.

 

we are hundreds and thousands of house short for the folk we already have....never mind anymore else.

It would be nice to own some prospective land tho....could sell to the builders and bugger off abroad and leave everyone to it!

hth

 

Bad idea for me. There is plenty of other land that can be redeveloped without having to spoil the increasingly rare natural beauty.

 

Good idea. 85% of Britain is completely undeveloped, and 5% of the 15% that is built on is garden land, and another 5% is infrastructure. We have a chronic housing shortage in this country due to a huge number of reasons, but particualry due to the changing demands of modern society, where people no longer live at home until they are married and older people are living for much longer.

The problem with only using brownfield development to meet housing demand is that you cram all the new homes on to patches of land in the middle of existing areas where infrastructure is already at capacity. Added to which the often contaminated nature of the site means that even more homes have to be crammed on to make it viable and little money is generated to provide new services.

It would be far better if greenfield land was released (in a carefully planned manner!) in addition to developing brownfield sites. The massive uplift in value from its existing use as agricultural land to residential can be used to properly fund new infrastructure (rail stops, roads, schools etc) and build lower density housing with public open spaces.

Brownfield sites alone will not meet the need for new homes.

 

The bizarre reasoning being

That releasing yet more of the area's most attractive finite resource to enrich Ben bailey and the like would be that the housing would be of such a stature that it would attract business leaders etc to live in barnsley and so relocate their companies. Also I assume they hope richer people will come and live in barnsley and 'up' the area.

A total failure to recognise where the problems lie in the housing stock, a failure in that this green belt land by difinition is away from work/social areas and so encouraging extra car usage and putting strain on the existing transport infrastructure.

Employers want a well educated, suitable for work environment workforce. the workforce want a town centre and surrounding districts with facilities, and a clean attractive environment to live and work in.

Ripping up green belt will only line the pockets of the builders and it will just bring in people who find housing in the larger conurbations (Leeds/Sheffield) expensive and so they will live on these out of town housing estates but travel back to Leeds and Sheffield for work/leisure time.

It'll bring in more council tax revenue but what will that be *****ed on ?

Houghton et al should concentrate on the schools, and improvingw hat we already ahve rather than looking with greed towards undeveloped land.

 

absolutely spot on, not sure how the council can go against the UDP though, it needs to come from Central Gov, and as the housing market is central to the economic performance of the country, maybe they'll see sense.

 

we need houses....fields are laying empty

build build build i say................. it does not matter what it will look like in 70/80 years...we'll all be dead.....people need homes NOW!!!!!

 

There are existing houses laying empty, why don't the council use funding to upgrade what is already there.

Also, this building on greenfield sites, how much of it will be on flood plains? Will they have guidelines that state just how much of the land can be concreted over - because one of the reason for the increase in flooding over the last few years is because so much land has been concreted over and there's no run-off for the water.

 

I don't know the specifc circumstances in Barnsley but there is significant money going in to empty homes funding nationwide. The problem is often determining who the owner is and engaging with them. There is also the option of Compulsary Purchase Orders to force through a sale of the home to the local authority to then refurbish and let but it is expensive and usually controversial (CPO is wrongly portrayed as creeping communism). However, there will be a significant focus on empty homes in Barnsley as there is elsewhere, but it won't solve housing need.

Planning polices generally state that permission can only be granted if the development does not increase the amount of surface run-off. This is far more challenging for greenfield sites but is achievable through sustainable drainage systems, permeable surfaces, underwater holding tanks which only release surface water after peak run-off etc etc.

I completely agree with the principle that greenfield development needs to be carefully planned, in terms of location, sustainable public transport, appropriate drainage systems, layout, public open space, new employment and schools etc. But I would rather us have planned and managed growth to meet housing need rather than building on every scrap of land within a (arbitrarily and historically defined) constrained urban area.

 

I suspect if you have some land, greenbelt or otherwise..... If you can get a significant member of the council 'on side', you are more likely to get planning permission, which turns relatively worthless greenbelt land into very valuable building land.....especially if they are all making a few bob out of it...... The builders always seem to get permission so they must 'know' someone?

Hth

 

Some surprisingly reasoned arguments on here around this subject but the bottom line for me is that if someone builds on the greenbelt surrounding me I'll be outta here

 

Not a dig at you at all but that's kind of the problem with the housing issue. Those that already have a home aren't likely to want any new housing. That's why I think it is one of those issues that should be taken by government. I really can't see how the localism agenda will ever work as the majority of people, even if they understand there is a need for new housing, won't chose to have it near them

 

Having just fought a campaign against a supermarket development,I can guarantee that if the Labour Councillors are in favour .....you will get the development....no matter how damaging the scheme is.