BUILD BUILD BUILD!.....on greenbelt!

[TheJasperCo]

I'm not a NIMBY, but the day our government feels the need to tear up farmland and areas of outstanding natural beauty, is the day I will concede that we are - as a country - officially overpopulated.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

what are you on about - you cant have it all your own way. you want to concrete over our countryside just so you can afford to buy a house?

keep renting - and go for a walk in the countryside every so often instead -youll feel better

if that doesnt work - move somewhere where you can afford to live - rather than moan about it here

Lol Christ what a total tosser you are!

 

[Baldseagull]

Best solution is to invigorate the North a bit and give incentives for business to move North. Plenty of housing up there, and areas for redevelopment, just not enough jobs. Encourage or force certain business sector's to be based in the North, no reason for it all to be in London.

 

[Soulman]

Soulman--If I believed that my vote would change a thing I would use it.
My kids are 14/21/24/29 and they will all have to move away from Brighton to get a chance on the property ladder---one has already to Tarring.
Until councils prioritise housing for the people that have got off their backsides and worked for a living we are all fecked.
I like a green field as much as the next bloke but if all my kids were able to afford their own places that is more important to me.
If its on a brownfield site then great - but they tend to be £250.000 places.

The trouble is Simmo, that many many people (quite a few on this thread actually) have said the same thing "why bother to vote" etc. Now if, and it is an if, many people have the same feelings as you as regards to property etc......and they voted, not necessarily for the party that ticks all their boxes, but the party that is strong on a certain stance, then perhaps many from that 66% that don't vote....might tip the balance. Surely one of the parties are closest to your kids being "able to afford their own places that is more important to me".

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

what are you on about - you cant have it all your own way. you want to concrete over our countryside just so you can afford to buy a house?

keep renting - and go for a walk in the countryside every so often instead -youll feel better

if that doesnt work - move somewhere where you can afford to live - rather than moan about it here

Well done that was a fantastic post willy---are you on drugs? - if not I can prescribe some

 

[beorhthelm]

so many sad responces. i dont realise we had so many nimbys after our struggle.

lets cut through this nonsence and present the obsurdity: we subsidise demand while tax supply. the urban population currently "occupy" less than 9% of the land of this country, and most of that is the fabled brown field, gardens, parks etc (London is one of the greenest and least dense cities in the world). if you want to solve housing we must develop, we will have to build on some of those precious fields (and re-use brown field too of course). rather than kneejerk anti-development we should demand it is structured and well planned so that the support infrastructure is build alongside, rather than fudges with funding for a little road improvement or "low cost" or "affordable" housing which wont be either in a decade.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Best solution is to invigorate the North a bit and give incentives for business to move North. Plenty of housing up there, and areas for redevelopment, just not enough jobs. Encourage or force certain business sector's to be based in the North, no reason for it all to be in London.

I see your point but its not an option for many people to just up stick's and leave family, friends, (years of plumbing contacts) and of course the Albion! Imagine having to travel down from the north every week to watch your own team play!

 

[Soulman]

what are you on about - you cant have it all your own way. you want to concrete over our countryside just so you can afford to buy a house?

keep renting - and go for a walk in the countryside every so often instead -youll feel better

if that doesnt work - move somewhere where you can afford to live - rather than moan about it here

With respect Willy, the rents are extortionate. Many do not want to leave where they were born and brought up, leaving their friends etc.
By the way, i did move away....up North, so i have done it.

 

[knocky1]

i think wrong direction is what we are looking at. £500 a mnth will not get you much of a mortgage and even then interest only. once they have built on the greenbelt you may still not be able to afford to buy. You will soon know. Mayfields have plans to build 10,000 homes between Henfield and Hurstpierpoint with Twineham being the centre.

Search mayfieldtowns.

 

[willyfantastic]

Lol Christ what a total tosser you are!

yeh nice one

its just a case of you not being able to afford to buy down south, so lets just build more housing because that will magically bring more jobs and hospitals (will it actually though? you have no idea, but in your head it will benefit you so thats fine)

don't wet the bed because people don't agree with you

 

[willyfantastic]

With respect Willy, the rents are extortionate. Many do not want to leave where they were born and brought up, leaving their friends etc.
By the way, i did move away....up North, so i have done it.

yeh i understand that - but the rent prices are extortionate around here for more reasons than just not enough houses

i can also understand people don't want to leave where they grew up - but end of the day, if you want to own a house and cant afford to live where you want - tough - you buy a place somewhere else instead - you don't throw out some stupid idea you thought of and claim its the solution because it solves your own problem

 

[Hastings woody]

So many problems would be solved if this was done - more houses, more schools, more hospitals and of course a heck of a lot more JOBS! There'll still be PLENTY of countryside to enjoy, times have changed, I'd rather live in a affordable house then stare at an empty field!

Can we widen the A21 first to Hastings. ( 2 people killed on it again yesterday) & matbe fix the roads we already have.?

 

[thisistips]

No, the irony is you posting from Switzerland - a country that has managed to bypass world wars but has managed to do rather well
Well done you,upping your meagre posts on this thread.

It's beautiful here, lots of protected green space, and of course, some mountains it would be hard to build on. I'd sooner be in sussex though. As for the rest of your comments, I'm quite moo about it too.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So many problems would be solved if this was done - more houses, more schools, more hospitals and of course a heck of a lot more JOBS! There'll still be PLENTY of countryside to enjoy, times have changed, I'd rather live in a affordable house then stare at an empty field!

They need to stop allowing 200,000+ people in to this country every year otherwise there will never be enough houses.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

i think wrong direction is what we are looking at. £500 a mnth will not get you much of a mortgage and even then interest only. once they have built on the greenbelt you may still not be able to afford to buy. You will soon know. Mayfields have plans to build 10,000 homes between Henfield and Hurstpierpoint with Twineham being the centre.

Search mayfieldtowns.

Indeed - building on greenfield sites won't bring down house prices or rent. We as a country couldn't physically build the housing stock needed to achieve that what with the backlog and then another 350k a year on top of that just to cover the expanding population.

Using W-D's example of £500 a month, to pay the equivalent but on a mortgage he would need to buy something at £150k and that's assuming only 1% interest. Use a more realistic 4% and he would need to buy a place for £100k. Building on greenfield sites WOULD NOT bring house prices down to that level ever.

So for that reason, it's a no from me for building on our green and pleasant areas. Other solutions need to be found.

 

[Diego Napier]

How about we don't?

The water and sewerage supplied are already over stretched in the South. It would cost millions/billions to provide a network that could bring water in from around the country and would also cause a lot of moaning about the roadworks to get it done.

Surely we could invest more in other areas and attract business to then to ensure they become as financially stable meaning people don't flock to an overcrowded area?

Over the last century this is exactly what successive governments did in deprived areas of the country; it's called Scotland.

 

[Kevlar]

the ratio between average wages and average house prices is much higher than
it was.The ratio of owner occupation is falling.
Inflation in one part of the economy reveals conflict.
House price inflation is crap for would be buyers and renters.
IF you own one home like me (partly with the nationwide) it does not realy matter
I need to live somewhere .
For landlords estate agents property devolpers it is all good
House price inflation represents a flow of wealth from those who rent to those
who let and the associated industry.
It is not in the interests of people doing well out of house price inflation to have
excess housing stock driving down prices .
It would affect government growth figures if house price deflated as opposed to inflated.
It goes well beyond de regulating green field housing regulations
It is a reflection of growing inequality falling social mobility
free market capitalism favours those with the capital
build more homes but landlords can still out bid owner occupiers for them
and there is a disincentive for housebuliders to see prices fall.
THe government can make an affect but it has to tame the market for the benefit of those
who own one house(their home) those who want to or are happy to rent
this can only be done at the expense of those doing well out of house
price inflation and political parties have BELIEF in the market.

 

[Drumstick]

Inner Cities need renovation, every new building should have some homes plonked on top, and once that is done then look at the green bits in cities. Its a NP but there area between Sheepcote, Woodingdean and Rottingdean would be my preference over 'proper' untouched countryside so to speak. Done correctly that bit could add ?a third to Brightons population. Then that bit between Bevendean and the Amex.

Not perfect but better than proper countryside?

Otherwise total Churchill Sq, The rest of Western Rd and build a few 60 story MAMOTHS!

 

[beorhthelm]

...Building on greenfield sites WOULD NOT bring house prices down to that level ever.

So for that reason, it's a no from me for building on our green and pleasant areas. Other solutions need to be found.

you cannot say that outright. for a start, what type of house? i wouldnt expect 4 bed semis in the south east to go as low as that, but what about 2 bed semi? or a flat? its not alot cheaper than currently possible if you go away from some popular areas. the irony here would be that the sort of people who want small homes dont particularly want to be on green field, they want to be close to town centres. the problem is there is little profit in developers making smal homes on brown field. they want to make 4 bed semis on the edge of town or develop fancy tower blocks in town (snapped by the rental market) because thats the money is made. why dont we have a policy where we grant planning on green belt with a compliementry scheme on brown field? much more likly to address the range of housing needs than the current policy of taxing house builders up front.

and its not about lowering prices necessarily, just arresting the rise would help home become affordable in a few years time. we have created artificial scarcity of land in this country, with house prices to match. planning permission in Sussex raises value of an acre of land 100x from agricultrual rates. thats going to raise the prices of homes. we need to accept some development on green belt, or accept people struggling to pay rents or mortgages. claiming to protect a few fields (often not particularly green or pleasant) is really about protecting exsiting property owners value.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

you cannot say that outright. for a start, what type of house? i wouldnt expect 4 bed semis in the south east to go as low as that, but what about 2 bed semi? or a flat? its not alot cheaper than currently possible if you go away from some popular areas. the irony here would be that the sort of people who want small homes dont particularly want to be on green field, they want to be close to town centres. the problem is there is little profit in developers making smal homes on brown field. they want to make 4 bed semis on the edge of town or develop fancy tower blocks in town (snapped by the rental market) because thats the money is made. why dont we have a policy where we grant planning on green belt with a compliementry scheme on brown field? much more likly to address the range of housing needs than the current policy of taxing house builders up front.

and its not about lowering prices necessarily, just arresting the rise would help home become affordable in a few years time. we have created artificial scarcity of land in this country, with house prices to match. planning permission in Sussex raises value of an acre of land 100x from agricultrual rates. thats going to raise the prices of homes. we need to accept some development on green belt, or accept people struggling to pay rents or mortgages. claiming to protect a few fields (often not particularly green or pleasant) is really about protecting exsiting property owners value.

This