Green Belt should be abolished

[TheNorm]

Green Belt land which for decades has protected fields and open space around towns and cities should be "abolished", a think tank has urged.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/24012007/34...abolished.html

It would certainly ease congestion in our towns and cities, and allow the building of affordable homes. And if you want to enjoy nature, you could still go to the Lake District, Dartmoor, etc.

What do you think?

[Shaun]

I think there is too much underutilised space within the citys right now and the focus should be on filling that.

No,No and thrice no.

There are still plenty brown field sites that can be re-developed.

Town planners need to be more creative.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I think there is too much underutilised space within the citys right now and the focus should be on filling that.

Originally Posted by Pierre

...There are still plenty brown field sites that can be re-developed....

They did consider this:

"In particular, Labour have made it a matter of policy that 60% of any new housing should be built on so called "brownfield" sites. This policy depends on, and results in, both high house prices and higher land prices."

[Rob]

It's a balancing act. We have to accept that if everyone want's to live in the south east of England, it will get crowded, conjested, and whatever we do we won't be able to meet demand thus housing (and other costs will be too high). Releasing green belt land wouldn't stop that, it would just mean even more areas get concreted over.

What is needed somehow, and I really thought the technology revolution could have helped this, is to spread our population about a bit. With modern communications why do we all need to live and work in one small area. Those face to face meetings aren't really necessary, so lets spread out a bit.

Originally Posted by Rob

It's a balancing act. We have to accept that if everyone want's to live in the south east of England, it will get crowded, conjested, and whatever we do we won't be able to meet demand thus housing (and other costs will be too high). Releasing green belt land wouldn't stop that, it would just mean even more areas get concreted over.

What is needed somehow, and I really thought the technology revolution could have helped this, is to spread our population about a bit. With modern communications why do we all need to live and work in one small area. Those face to face meetings aren't really necessary, so lets spread out a bit.

Yes, Please all live in the South East and leave us Northerners with clean air and fields

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Rob

It's a balancing act. We have to accept that if everyone want's to live in the south east of England, it will get crowded, conjested, and whatever we do we won't be able to meet demand thus housing (and other costs will be too high). Releasing green belt land wouldn't stop that, it would just mean even more areas get concreted over...

I don't understand why property (and land) prices have gone up so rapidly, but population hasn't. This phenomenon isn't confined to the south east.

...What is needed somehow, and I really thought the technology revolution could have helped this, is to spread our population about a bit. With modern communications why do we all need to live and work in one small area. Those face to face meetings aren't really necessary, so lets spread out a bit.

Agreed. Perhaps the technology is not quite up to scratch. If we had a consistently high level of service, perhaps more companies would go for it.

[Halcyon]

I think this is an absolutely awful idea !

About ten years ago you only had to walk up the street where I live to see fields and a bit of green land with wildlife.
This is now a huge new housing estate that has expanded in size dramatically in the last ten years.
you can now see the estate gradually creeping over from the next village with now only one field seperating the old road with the estate.

I think it is important for people to have open space and that this open space is countryside. It gives people a break from the city.
If we are not careful we will end up like the capitol cities where children have never seen a cow or a pheasent in a field as everywhere is concrete and houses.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I don't understand why property (and land) prices have gone up so rapidly, but population hasn't. This phenomenon isn't confined to the south east.

Part of the problem is that we are encouraged to think of property as an investment rather than just mere buildings. This has created a situation where people are increasingly buying up a few houses just to convert them into flats, and sell/rent the flats to other people. Interestingly, they said in the Standard the other day (the day they featured a flat the size of a cupboard that was up for sale at £170,000) that the market for Flats is in the process of collapsing because of oversupply.

There is also the problem that people in Central London (I'm talking about City Executives and rich people here- your average nurse or teacher is unlikely to be able to do this) are increasingly buying up second (or third) homes around the country, which is increasing prices in those areas, and possibly pricing some locals out of the market

[King Of Fools]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I don't understand why property (and land) prices have gone up so rapidly, but population hasn't. This phenomenon isn't confined to the south east.

It is a bubble driven up by speculation (like all, for example the dotcom bubble) and like any bubble before, it will eventually burst and house prices will return to their historic average of 3.5 x average wage.

[Stuart C]

BTW, I think the Green Belt should be preserved, not destroyed. After all, plants and trees help clean the air, and help provide oxygen. Something which I am sure everyone will agree is far more important than money.

---------- Post added at 12:14 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------

Originally Posted by King Of Fools

It is a bubble driven up by speculation (like all, for example the dotcom bubble) and like any bubble before, it will eventually burst and house prices will return to their historic average of 3.5 x average wage.

That's why I think people should stop thinking of housing as an investment. Yes, it's nice to find out that your house is worth more than you paid for it, but, one thing people forget is that other houses have risen by similar amounts, and they still need to live somewhere even if they sell.

[King Of Fools]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

That's why I think people should stop thinking of housing as an investment. Yes, it's nice to find out that your house is worth more than you paid for it, but, one thing people forget is that other houses have risen by similar amounts, and they still need to live somewhere even if they sell.

Indeed, I sometimes really worry about some people; they say they are lucky that they bought a house for £100k that is now "worth" £200k but when it comes to moving to a bigger house they forget the fact that even though they have "gained" £100k of equity on their current house they are actually worse off if they buy a house for £300k. They need to increase their mortgage by £100k but if the prices had not gone up they would only need to increase it by £50k!

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

...I think it is important for people to have open space and that this open space is countryside. It gives people a break from the city.
If we are not careful we will end up like the capitol cities where children have never seen a cow or a pheasent in a field as everywhere is concrete and houses.

We would still have open spaces, but they would be "redistributed".

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Part of the problem is that we are encouraged to think of property as an investment rather than just mere buildings. This has created a situation where people are increasingly buying up a few houses just to convert them into flats, and sell/rent the flats to other people. Interestingly, they said in the Standard the other day (the day they featured a flat the size of a cupboard that was up for sale at £170,000) that the market for Flats is in the process of collapsing because of oversupply.

There is also the problem that people in Central London (I'm talking about City Executives and rich people here- your average nurse or teacher is unlikely to be able to do this) are increasingly buying up second (or third) homes around the country, which is increasing prices in those areas, and possibly pricing some locals out of the market

The authors of the report have an alternative explanation (see below).

Originally Posted by King Of Fools

It is a bubble driven up by speculation (like all, for example the dotcom bubble) and like any bubble before, it will eventually burst and house prices will return to their historic average of 3.5 x average wage.

Apart from the occasional "blip", property prices have been rising steadily for decades.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

...That's why I think people should stop thinking of housing as an investment. Yes, it's nice to find out that your house is worth more than you paid for it, but, one thing people forget is that other houses have risen by similar amounts, and they still need to live somewhere even if they sell.

Property is a good investment because the price is likely to rise - it's just simple economics.

The full report* makes interesting reading. The explanation for rising property prices is summed up here:

...we look at the way in which the policy of constraint came into being, at first unacknowledged, later as an implicit policy. Most recently, in the years since 1997, it has become an explicit policy of containing the spatial extent of the urban area. We show that the result has been a general increase in the price of land for all uses, whether residential, commercial and industrial. We show that as the economy has grown and land prices have risen this has resulted in a bias against ‘land extensive’ uses such as manufacturing industry, and that this bias is magnified by the current government’s policy of encouraging residential development on land in other uses, so-called ‘brown field sites’...

I think they are saying that green belt land acts as a sort of "noose" around towns and cities, exerting pressure on the price of land within. If towns and cities were allowed to expand, this pressure would be relieved, and properties would become more affordable. Interesting idea.



* the full report as PDF can be found here: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/235.pdf

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Property is a good investment because the price is likely to rise - it's just simple economics.

It is percieved as simple economics simply because people don't look beyond the money they get back.

I think they are saying that green belt land acts as a sort of "noose" around towns and cities, exerting pressure on the price of land within. If towns and cities were allowed to expand, this pressure would be relieved, and properties would become more affordable. Interesting idea.

I know exactly what they are saying. This argument has been used before to justify building on the Green belt, and attempts to "relieve pressure" have obviously failed because we still have excessively high property and land prices. This is another thing that leads me to think we should be looking at other solutions.

[Jules]

I see too many places empty and getting more and more grotty, fill these before you start building even more