Well, they would, wouldn’t they?

Relaxing green belt restrictions would be highly unpopular with voters, campaigners have warned, after Boris Johnson promoted several advocated of major planning reform to his Cabinet.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England is expected to publish a new poll showing that 63 per cent of the population oppose changes making it easier for homes to be built on green belt land – the protected zones across the country designed to prevent urban sprawl.

We can all agree that CPRE wouldn’t be releasing a poll where peeps said, sure, fine, just build on the damn stuff, yes?

31 thoughts on “Well, they would, wouldn’t they?”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    63 per cent of the population oppose changes making it easier for homes to be built on green belt land

    A significant proportion of those will be Remainers.

    I ask any remainer who bangs on about the economic consequences of leaving the EU if they are in favour of building on the green belt, pointing out that urbanisation is the most efficient way of organising society.

    Its amazing how many of them don’t get the point that in a political economy all decisions are trade-offs and if they think the economic trade-off for the green belt is worth it then why don’t they understand that some of us think leaving is worth the short term economic trade-off. Denial seems to be the most biggest response.

  2. Most people are opposed to the building of any housing anywhere.

    “It would spoil the view I don’t pay for therefore I insist other people must go without decent housing” is merely the excuse that sounds the least selfish.

  3. @BiG, it’s not ‘the view’, it’s the corresponding loss of green space and failure to uprate the services in the area to accommodate the extra people.

  4. Extra people? Where do they appear from? Maybe there was one more question that should have been on the survey.

  5. The Meissen Bison

    JuliaM is right and what’s more you do “pay for the view” because (obviously) the price of a property reflects the sum of its amenities.

  6. Thing is, you can extend the commuter belt around London so far, but if its not green and pleasant, and relatively cheap, then the point of commuting starts to fall away

  7. We pay for our view. The rates on our side of the street, which has ocean views, are twice those on the other side that do not and about 5-6 times the average rate. For that we get the same number of waste collections as every one else, less street lighting than the average street and no pavement.

  8. Anything to stop building, Julia.

    I remember when Southampton FC was looking at Stoneham to relocate their creaking old stadium. Stoneham is where all the rich tories live. The planning application was thrown out on the grounds of inadequate transport links.

    The proposed location was adjacent to the M3, M27, and fricking Southampton International Airport (with a mainline intercity train station).

    Anything to stop building anything anywhere ever.

  9. @BiND

    But “nobody would vote to make themselves poorer” you know!

    Cf emissions legislation, “a penny on income tax to fund the NHS” and various other Lib Dem policies…

  10. The CPRE should be honest and rename themselves as the Campaign to Protect Rural English House Prices.

  11. I’d like to know where these green belts are – everywhere I look, there’s new housing going up, or “coming soon”. Builders must be partying like it’s 2007.

  12. The IEA/Moggster report https://iea.org.uk/publications/raising-the-roof/ suggests building on brownfield sites in the green belt.

    It is not about concreting over the Cotswolds.

    You’d think the CPRE would know better until you realise it is – like all other similar bodies – a vehicle for well-paid cunts who live in London and have the same opinions as all the other cunts who live in London and have well-paid bullshit jobs.

  13. For some reason I don’t understand the council in my are (and I doubt they are alone) is preferring building on Green Belt land as opposed to land which is merely “protected open space” (I think it’s called). This is a supposedly lower level of protection.
    Anyone have any idea why?

  14. By the way, The Guardian had an opinion piece on the reasons for housing shortages which was predictably Tory/Nimby bashing. Why aren’t there more council houses? – you get the picture.
    From circuitously worded comments it was clear that the mods were working overtime deleting any comment which suggested that the birth rate didn’t justify all the house-building and where on earth was the extra demand coming from?
    It’s a mystery never to be revealed to readers of The Guardian.

  15. @Wonko

    Dunno about “if its not green and pleasant, and relatively cheap, then the point of commuting starts to fall away”.

    Outer London is effectively the inner ring of the commuter belt – indeed it’s just the part of the commuter belt that got swallowed up first – and there isn’t a great deal green and pleasant about Brent or Croydon or Romford.

    Provided property prices are lower than those within a cycle ride of The City, by a margin great enough to offset the season ticket, people seem happy to commute from pretty dingy places, particularly if the schools are decent.

    I’m sure they’d be even happier to live somewhere green and pleasant, but it doesn’t seem to be a must-have for most.

  16. I live in a town that is entirely surrounded by a national park. So we get swathes of house-building for people who want the pleasures of being in the national park, but they can’t actually build there, so they build a mile down the road in our town.
    I wouldn’t mind it so much, but in the 1970s/80s the local councils red-lined areas of town for development and ensured infrastructure access was in place, but these have been ignored in favour of huge open fields. Plus the price of the new housing is out of reach of locals, so locals struggle to find housing. We haven’t seen the Wortall effect of building expensive housing decants people out of cheaper housing making cheaper housing available. What happens is the decanted-out housing becomes holiday cottages.

  17. Steve,

    Oxford has a whopping Greenbelt. 9 times larger than the city. You notice it if you go there. It goes from built up to nothing.

    It’s also strangled Oxford. Swindon has an Imax. it’s getting an indoor ski centre. Why isn’t Oxford? You can’t build there. Mini is expanding in Netherlands. Why? It costs a fortune to get people to move to Oxford to live. Startups don’t set up there. They move to places like Green Park in Reading.

    I do software work in the Thames Valley and I almost never get a call about work in Oxford.

    So, Oxford can keep doing it as far as I’m concerned. Oxfords loss is Swindons gain.

  18. Intensive agricultural land with no amenity value is for practical purposes brownfield land – agriculture is an industry after all, and if there are no public footpaths, SSSIs, NNRs there then it makes better sense on cost grounds to build on it if the demand is there than to recycle inner city building land which may have higher amenity value being turned into urban green space.
    We’ve got 30m buildings in round numbers, if say 1 in 200 a year need replacing per year, then that’s still 150k/yr erections of some sort required even without population growth.

  19. The Left believes in taqiyya – it is moral to lie to disbelievers. They will say anything. Truth and reality are not relevant in pursuit of their agenda.

    The good news is they still feel they have to package it to get people to believe it. E.g., ‘a new poll showing that 63 per cent of the population oppose changes making it easier.’

    If Big Brother were in charge, they would just tell you the people oppose it. No need to lie about a poll. They could lie directly.

    Disbelievers obviously have a mental problem and will be re-educated.

  20. Been saying for years that the answer to the non-existent housing crisis is demolishing some those inner suburb terraces,, now re-purposed as crap flat conversions* & build some proper apartment blocks. Sort of things we have here. !0+ stories over pavement level retail with 2 or three levels of parking under..
    There’s no shortage of housing. You see favellas appearing on Hampstead Heath? There’s a shortage of property where people aspire to live at prices they’re able to afford.

    *Believe me. Crap conversions of even crappier structures. I’ve been responsible for enough of them.

  21. @bis

    Around Brent in particular, there are lots of people living in sheds or tents in their “landlord’s” back garden, or rammed into cupboards indoors. Seems to be the London take on the favella.

    Those inner suburb terraces seem surprisingly popular among young professionals for reasons I cannot fathom. Perhaps it’s just an English trait, something we’ve been encultured with, to want to have a “house”?

  22. I think Yes Prime Minister taught us everything we need to know about polls particularly those from govt and charities etc

  23. Bloke in North Dorset

    How about that stretch from Uxbridge to the M40 for development?

    I never understood why the FA didn’t , or weren’t forced to, move to that area. Easy access from the M25/M40, spur or station on the Chiltern Line and easy to extend the Tube.

  24. Bongo,

    I’m sure the joke has been made a million times before, but 150k erections a year will get you negative population growth.

  25. “I’d hope there wouldn’t be much left wing about the Campaign to Protect Rural England.”

    I assume O’Sullivan’s First Law applies:

    “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”

  26. ‘Climate breakdown and the resulting damage to nature poses the greatest threat to the countryside’

    ‘CPRE analysis shows huge savings for rural communities if affordable rents are based on income.’

    ‘Reversing the loss of biodiversity – what does it mean for the countryside? If we continue with business as usual, 1 million species will be eradicated’

    Yep. Leftard eco-loons.

  27. ‘CPRE analysis shows huge savings for rural communities if affordable rents are based on income.’

    That’s not leftard, it’s common knowledge these days. You get more good stuff for everyone, and its more fair, by making it less profitable to supply it. Everyone knows that !!!!!

  28. “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”

    How does that apply to the Conservative Party?

  29. @MC August 4, 2019 at 11:11 am

    +1

    .
    @JS August 4, 2019 at 11:17 am

    The Guardian mods were working overtime deleting any comment which suggested that the birth rate didn’t justify all the house-building and where on earth was the extra demand coming from?
    It’s a mystery never to be revealed to readers of The Guardian.

    Also censored by Pols, BBC, C4 – immigration: the verboten word; illegal immigration – hate crime police will be at your door.

    .
    @bis

    2 or three levels of parking under..

    +1

    Our loons mandate fewer parking spaces. Uni near me wanted to expand and build new labs, library, offices, lecture rooms etc – council “you must reduce existing parking spaces by 1/3”

    .
    @PJF August 4, 2019 at 4:59 pm

    You may hope, but CPRE has been hijacked by Left PC SJWs

    The Campaign to Destroy Rural England

    As Britain’s economy, population and industry have grown, concerns for the future of natural landscapes and wildlife have also grown. The Campaign to Protect Rural England – the CPRE – is one organisation that claims to represent such concerns. Established in 1926, and like other similar organisations, the CPRE promised supporters that it would protect natural landscapes from incautious and hasty development.

    But as political momentum has gathered behind climate change policy, green organisations have drifted from their founding purpose. And the CPRE is no exception. The problem facing organisations like the CPRE is that green energy requires a lot of space….

    CPRE and Left inc Cons – make energy more expensive to make UK poorer and ultimately a third world country with real poverty.

    Equality in Poverty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *