Farewell Englands greenbelts

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
21

del949:

The problem is the Nimbies up North want all the development and housing put down South

and why not, southerners get all the investment and oop north we’re choosy, we don’t want all your cast offs!

That’s the issue.Loads of norvernors always wanting everything their own way.It’s a type of ‘investment’ that we don’t want thanks and as it’s mostly norvernors who seem to be doing all the shouting about loads more houses being built then let them take it all for a change.Instead of us being lumbered with yet more.If it’s good enough for the South to have been lumbered with loads of urbanisation and immigrants over the years then it’s good enough for the North to now start taking their fair share of it all.Especially as they seem to be the ones doing all the shouting about yet more housing estates being built.

As it stands they just want the Southern councils to be mug enough,to keep on accepting our counties being wiped out,by continuing never ending urbanisation,infrastructure and immigration while,as I said,places like North Yorkshire etc etc have more sheep grazing on their barren hillsides than people.While their towns and villages remain untouched by large scale development while ours get turned into inner city type areas of flats and office blocks and London suburbs. :imp: :unamused:

22

del949:
No worries, we’ll put OUR rents up as well!

Then we’ll put ours up even higher. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

23

How about a few sensible policies ie-non breeders pay reduced income tax for not burdening the planet with progeny or large caravan type houses substituted for bricks and mortar?..this would grate i suppose with the English ‘homes my castle’ mindset but there would be a a return to a more natural dynamic,far more sustainable,easier to maintain and stick on the back of a truck if theres a wish to move.This has got to be better than a sprawling plague of pseudo gentrified poorly built,orange brick abortions despoiling the land.

24

dessy:
100,000 new homes a year a required by our growing population!

There’s no problem with the balance between population and housing as things stand.What the government are trying to do is to oversupply the housing market in a vain attempt to bring housing costs in line with our de industrialised mickey mouse economy and it’s mickey mouse worthles currency and a problem of too many people wanting to live in certain parts of the country while leaving others unpopulated.Added to that is the problem of our continuing open door immigration policy which is all about keeping the labour market oversupplied thereby keeping wage levels low but housing demand high. :unamused:

We’ve been there seen it and done it in Surrey.The result was losing over half the county to London’s needs not ours and instead of some/enough cheap houses for ourselves and plenty of countryside we’ve now got loads of expensive housing in zb hole urban areas of what is now London and in which most of those people who wanted it are then continuously looking to move out of and move into the remaining rural parts of the county which haven’t,as yet,been wrecked by the developers.Which is the actual driving force behind the expansion of London and it’s only the Green Belt policy which stands in the way of the whole county being wiped out on that basis.

25

It’s hard to imagine the landscapes of the north being suited to large scale house building tbh,the land tends to be a bit soggy.No the perpetual London problem is as ever to blame it’s like a giant tumour infecting everything in it’s path in more ways than one.

26

manalishi:
It’s hard to imagine the landscapes of the north being suited to large scale house building tbh,the land tends to be a bit soggy.No the perpetual London problem is as ever to blame it’s like a giant tumour infecting everything in it’s path in more ways than one.

I don’t think there’s much difference between most parts of the country in quality of ground for general development based on usual building practices.London is only a problem up to the point where the surrounding counties say enough no more and refuse to give up any more of their land space to London’s expansion.Which is why the Green Belt policy exists at least in the sense of Surrey’s green belt.Which then just leaves the problem of the developers still seeing the place’s gardens and small towns as fair game for inner city type development projects of high density housing,flats and office blocks.While continuously calling for the Green Belt policy to be removed from the area so they can finish their wish of turning most of,if not the whole,county from Surrey into South West London. :imp:

27

It seems to me this is all symptomatic of a greater problem of humanity in general people breeding beyond the capacity of the planets resources and a capitalist/plutocratic desire to annexe everything that is precious to be sliced and diced for the exclusive benefits of noxious entities such as abramovich or philip green whose existances are predicated to this unsustainable dynamic.

Can you imagine the sheer horror of a land festooned in identikit,souless retail parks and Mc housing estates and that outrageous abomination,Nick Clegg has recently gone on record as actually arguing for more towns to be built along the lines of Milton ■■■■■■■ Keynes.I rest my case.

28

manalishi:
Can you imagine the sheer horror of a land festooned in identikit,souless retail parks and Mc housing estates and that outrageous abomination,Nick Clegg has recently gone on record as actually arguing for more towns to be built along the lines of Milton [zb] Keynes.I rest my case.

It’s all about profit for the developers at the expense of the quality of life of those living in an area.But the continuing transformation of the counties close to London over the years says everything about the results and futility of thinking that large scale development and urbanisation will solve anything.In that it’s those now urban areas of Greater London that were not long ago rural North Surrey that now suffer the most problems of expensive housing built in overdeveloped estates which many people would prefer to move out of into what remains of the rural parts of the county.Ironically it’s that demand which then gets translated into pressure by developers to turn yet more of the place into an expensive urban sprawl which no one wants to live in when it’s built.So the whole process then starts all over again.

So far the Green Belt policy is stopping them doing that except in the case of gardens being turned into small housing estates.It’s just a question of how long before the developers get what they want again just as they have before here over the years.

29

Being a country lass, all i can say is i hope im 6ft under by the time the countryside completly ruined. Hate seeing what used to be fields turned into urban sprawl, not contributing to it either im more than happy living in a caravan :slight_smile:

30

we are being told that our council area needs to have 1200 new houses built to meet expected demand . an independent survey revealed that there are already 400+ empty unsold homes in said area . the council also have plans to build 350 new houses , but only if they can find a private builder to share the site and put all the infrastructure in for them . what planet are these people living on ?

31

Carryfast:

del949:

The problem is the Nimbies up North want all the development and housing put down South

and why not, southerners get all the investment and oop north we’re choosy, we don’t want all your cast offs!

That’s the issue.Loads of norvernors always wanting everything their own way.It’s a type of ‘investment’ that we don’t want thanks and as it’s mostly norvernors who seem to be doing all the shouting about loads more houses being built then let them take it all for a change.Instead of us being lumbered with yet more.If it’s good enough for the South to have been lumbered with loads of urbanisation and immigrants over the years then it’s good enough for the North to now start taking their fair share of it all.Especially as they seem to be the ones doing all the shouting about yet more housing estates being built.

As it stands they just want the Southern councils to be mug enough,to keep on accepting our counties being wiped out,by continuing never ending urbanisation,infrastructure and immigration while,as I said,places like North Yorkshire etc etc have more sheep grazing on their barren hillsides than people.While their towns and villages remain untouched by large scale development while ours get turned into inner city type areas of flats and office blocks and London suburbs. :imp: :unamused:

You never been to Bradford/Leicester/Luton etc. etc. etc…Your ignorance is astounding, it really is.
They flock to the South East because thats where the money is and it is easy to lose yourelf in a highr population density…And for your information, Boston in Lincs has seen the largest influx of immigrants in the most recent years.

I moved from Sussex because of all the ethnics penetrating the area(London Overspill) And am now in a rural idyll that has no prospect of more developments, because of lack of roads and agricultural land being at a premium :wink: :sunglasses: The South east deserves all it gets in the pursuance of financial gain and all the crap that goes with servicing the wealthy few :smiling_imp:

32

att:

Carryfast:

del949:

The problem is the Nimbies up North want all the development and housing put down South

and why not, southerners get all the investment and oop north we’re choosy, we don’t want all your cast offs!

That’s the issue.Loads of norvernors always wanting everything their own way.It’s a type of ‘investment’ that we don’t want thanks and as it’s mostly norvernors who seem to be doing all the shouting about loads more houses being built then let them take it all for a change.Instead of us being lumbered with yet more.If it’s good enough for the South to have been lumbered with loads of urbanisation and immigrants over the years then it’s good enough for the North to now start taking their fair share of it all.Especially as they seem to be the ones doing all the shouting about yet more housing estates being built.

As it stands they just want the Southern councils to be mug enough,to keep on accepting our counties being wiped out,by continuing never ending urbanisation,infrastructure and immigration while,as I said,places like North Yorkshire etc etc have more sheep grazing on their barren hillsides than people.While their towns and villages remain untouched by large scale development while ours get turned into inner city type areas of flats and office blocks and London suburbs. :imp: :unamused:

You never been to Bradford/Leicester/Luton etc. etc. etc…Your ignorance is astounding, it really is.
They flock to the South East because thats where the money is and it is easy to lose yourelf in a highr population density…And for your information, Boston in Lincs has seen the largest influx of immigrants in the most recent years.

I moved from Sussex because of all the ethnics penetrating the area(London Overspill) And am now in a rural idyll that has no prospect of more developments, because of lack of roads and agricultural land being at a premium :wink: :sunglasses: The South east deserves all it gets in the pursuance of financial gain and all the crap that goes with servicing the wealthy few :smiling_imp:

The difference is that Lincolnshire’s,Bedfordshire’s or Yorkshire’s,County Councils wouldn’t allow the type of expansion of Leeds/Bradford and/or general housing development to wipe out those counties rural areas and the character of it’s small towns in the way that Surrey,Kent,Essex and Middlesex County Council for example have all done in the case of allowing London and it’s population to do to those counties over the years.The Green Belt policy has been a case of,better late than never,putting the brakes on that issue and telling London and it’s population that it’s time to stay where they are or zb off up North where there’s more room to start building loads more houses for them.

The South East doesn’t deserve all it gets and in this case and,so far,it’s ( rightly ) no longer ‘getting’ what it ‘got’ previously over the years because of the Green Belt policy which has at least put some brake on London’s continuing demands for our land and countryside for it’s population ( although it’s no where near strong enough in stopping all of the continuing demands for too much development here ).

Which no surprise the Northerners don’t like because they don’t want the type of urbanisation and massive influx of people from all over the country and other countries that we’ve so far had to put up with and they obviously want the staus quo,of us getting it all instead,to continue.Tough.It’s now time for the North to start taking it’s fair share of the country’s housing and development requirements and for London to finally realise that the surrounding counties and their populations have had enough of seeing our areas being turned into yet more urban sprawl for Londoners and others around the country who think that the South East has been put here just for their benefit to do whatever they want with.

It’s ironic that a refugee from that situation is now trying to defend the North just because you’ve decided to move there to get away from the issue instead of standing your ground down here and telling the developers to zb off and take their ideas somewhere else because we’ve had enough considering how far London’s boundary has already been allowed to move out to.

As for roads and so called agricultural land being an issue if they can cover Surrey in roads and houses they can do the same up there and where’s the sense in wiping out decent agricultural land down here in the South East where the weather is much better while saving it up there in the freezing wet north. :unamused:

33

The difference is that Lincolnshire’s,Bedfordshire’s or Yorkshire’s,County Councils wouldn’t allow the type of expansion of Leeds/Bradford and/or general housing development to wipe out those counties rural areas and the character of it’s small towns in the way that

you really have no idea , do you?
the green belt surrounding Bradford is constantly being eaten away, one of the reasons I don’t live there anymore. the surrounding villages and townships are constantly fighting to remain outside the urban sprawl.
Leeds/ Bradford are virtually indistinguishable as there are no green boundaries between them.
the same generally applies to Halifax, Huddersfield etc, all just one big urban sprawl with virtually no green areas between them.
And if you go to Lancashire… Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale are pretty much the same.
Granted North Yorkshire is more rural, but dont think for a minute that West Yorks is any different to the mess you have “darn sarf”, except we don’t get the financial investments that the south east has had over the last years.

34

del949:

The difference is that Lincolnshire’s,Bedfordshire’s or Yorkshire’s,County Councils wouldn’t allow the type of expansion of Leeds/Bradford and/or general housing development to wipe out those counties rural areas and the character of it’s small towns in the way that

you really have no idea , do you?
the green belt surrounding Bradford is constantly being eaten away, one of the reasons I don’t live there anymore. the surrounding villages and townships are constantly fighting to remain outside the urban sprawl.
Leeds/ Bradford are virtually indistinguishable as there are no green boundaries between them.
the same generally applies to Halifax, Huddersfield etc, all just one big urban sprawl with virtually no green areas between them.
And if you go to Lancashire… Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale are pretty much the same.
Granted North Yorkshire is more rural, but dont think for a minute that West Yorks is any different to the mess you have “darn sarf”, except we don’t get the financial investments that the south east has had over the last years.

Leave it out.Of course I’ve got an idea.Halifax and Huddersfield might be an urban sprawl just no where near what we’ve had down here over the years.If you want to know what real urban sprawl is just try driving from Ruislip through Uxbridge,Hayes,Feltham,Hampton,Teddington which were all once seperate small towns/villages in Middlesex then Kingston,Surbiton,Tolworth,New Malden,Cheam,Sutton,Croydon which were all seperate small towns/villages in Surrey then West Wickham,Orpington,and Sidcup which were all seperate small towns in Kent all with countryside between them.

Then add to that all the other development and infilling and further development that’s been going on in the areas of London outside of those areas and even in the remaining areas of those counties before and since the Greater London boundary was drawn.Then to add insult to injury people,who have no connection with this area,are then telling us to build the same amounts of housing again as we’ve already built in those counties,within and outside of those areas,taken by London so far. :unamused:

By comparison the North has taken relatively little of the country’s development as a proportion of it’s available land mass.Such as Warwickshire,Northamptonshire,Shropshire,Herefordshire,Northumbria,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Yorkshire etc etc.

As for financial investment our roads are falling apart,our hospital cover is a joke,and we can only just about pay for our police service while we’re a net contributor to most of the Northern areas even after the tories told us they would sort the issue after the Labour party raid on the south east’s finances to subsidise the so called poorer North.While areas of London are documented as being the poorest in the country.

35

The thing is Carryfast, in the Rural parts we grow food and suchlike. And large parts of what was Warwickshire became the West Midlands, along with parts of other counties. And the Birmingham/Black Country urban sprawl is as bad as London and just as full of immigrants. Just like Leeds/Bradford and countless other places. As for rural Surrey it’s a horrible dive of a place and should be flattened for houses and an expansion of Heathrow as soon as possible.

36

Warwickshire,Northamptonshire,Shropshire,Herefordshire

the North?

37

del949:

Warwickshire,Northamptonshire,Shropshire,Herefordshire

the North?

Carryfast has a Surrey centric view of the world. If it isn’t Slurry then it might as well be Outer Mongolia.

38

dessy:

sea frog:
what we need is a plague of some sort to wipe a few million inhabbitants off the plannet :stuck_out_tongue:

Next best thing! A Jihad in the holy land! :laughing:

where though? Brumistan or bradistan■■? :open_mouth: :unamused: :grimacing: :grimacing:

39

Carryfast:
as I said,places like North Yorkshire etc etc have more sheep grazing on their barren hillsides than people.

Valid point CF as I lived on the edge of the North York Moors for a few years and as far as I can recall I can’t remember seeing many ‘people’ grazing there either, as we didn’t eat grass ! :unamused:

40

:smiley: :smiley:
he certainly has some strange ideas about Northeners.(and where the North actually is!)

But there is good news as well.
I have it on good authority that next year we will be getting that new fangled “elektrisity” :slight_smile: