14 comments on “A Green Belt for South Hampshire?

  1. Most of this is pure rubbish and a big “con” by the council’s and government, we don’t need more housing we don’t need to build on Green belt. Stop immergration.

  2. Guy – If you have presented the situation fairly and accurately – and I believe you have – then I support your stance.

  3. Guy
    I agree you have probably have presented the facts.
    But this still doesn’t give justification to build on the green belt?

    • HI Steve, At the moment there isn’t a green belt. All of our communities have farmland that is ultimately at risk. I don’t really want any of us to loose any or more than we absolutely have to but a green belt running through say Eastleigh, Fareham Gosport and Havant would create a large strip where land just isn’t developable and will displace more housing our way. A good example is the SDNPA which is in effect a green belt. Our largest settlement in East Hants is Petersfield and we are building more homes in each of Rowlands Castle, Horndean and Clanfield because of the protected status of the SDNPA. Im very happy with a green belt provided the local authorities who benefit from it undertake to accommodate their own housing needs in their own districts and not look to us to take on their unmet need.

  4. Hello Guy Your review of the “Green Belt” idea seems very sound to me. As the creation of SDNP effectively removed about half the area of EH, thus doubling the housing requirements on the reminder, it seems to me that this is de facto our VERY LARGE contribution to a green belt philosophy…..

    OK, that may be tongue in cheek, but it rather leads to follow on questions. What status would a “Green Belt” have, in terms of legal constraints on the Planning Authorities? The term Green Belt has existed for many years, and many folk thought that this meant an automatic no-build status, but as we know this was no so. Further, even National Parks are required to provide some additional housing (albeit of “modest” numbers), and a Green Belt would have even less ability to withstand housing pressures. So again, what might be the legal status of such? Indeed, how does CPRE envisage this concept coming to fruition?

    While I find it difficult to contemplate this idea, the idea of retaining selected areas as no-go for housing seems worthwhile. Could it be accomplished by a series of small protected areas (or parks, perhaps akin to SSSI)? If each district and borough council put forward a plan for such areas, so that there appears to be a coordinated approach, Government would have a more difficult case to argue, rather than swot aside the plaintive complaints of individual bodies without any alternative offerings? And then, of course, it should be possible to argue that additional housing should be distributed on build-capability, not essentially on a population basis; extra funding to local government could be used to encourage that build.

    This is an easy subject for “carping”, but difficult to progress. Thank you for the continuing updates, and your willingness to plough on through the treacly morass of government.

    David Snowden

    Sent from Mail for Windows 10

    ________________________________

    • Good evening David and apologies for the slow reply, I was away at an event in Kent and didn’t have great internet access!

      The park has over half of the EHDC territory and takes only about 10% of the housing in the area. Green belt status would be about the same level of protection. In our local plan we can designate areas as ‘Gaps’ to not build on but these can only be protected if we have enough housing being built elsewhere to cater for our own needs. (An up to date local plan and a five year land supply)

      Local planning authorities work to balance housing need with protecting against development and have to take a balanced view to get their local plan accepted by the inspector. The CPRE proposal didn’t consider where we might allocate our housing need, but was just a proposal to identify a large no build zone. Im very happy to support that notion as long as the Councils adopting the approach can find enough space for their own needs.

      I will post updates as they come…

  5. Guy
    Thank you for your reply and in theory that sounds a sensible policy.
    But in practice over time governments tend to change there minds and break there promises?

    • Tend to break the policy’s, promises?, how about always?
      We are in one of the biggest changes to effect every single living person in the UK, children, mothers, fathers, grandparents, have the government changed their policy yes yes and yes again and before this year is out they will change again, hopefully to a No Deal.
      Housing everywhere is required they say, and most of the pop follow like sheep.
      Women’s pensions Stolen from them! What is done about it ? Nothing,!
      Yes Guy how much more bull shite will we have to put up with? Housing Pensions Immergration Policing Teaching Hospitals the list goes on and on and, tell me it doesn’t, please?

  6. Guy
    You say we need to build 100,000 new houses by 2034 and With global warming being very much in the news who Decides how many houses are to be built?
    As governments and local authorities have a legal duty of care who will be accountable in the future?
    Is this an environmentally sound decision?

    • Hi Steve, our population is growing, people are living longer, and compared to 50 years ago when three generations regularly used to live in a house, today it is often one. Our house building rate doesn’t keep up with this which is why house prices have risen beyond the reach of first time buyers and we need to get the right balance. The root cause of global warming is our growing population (as well as burning fossil fuels). Not building enough houses wouldn’t solve global warming but would increase homelessness.

  7. Hi Guy
    Thanks for your reply but the question I’m really asking how are these decided?
    Who actually works out the amount and how scientific are there findings?
    When do we get to the point when enough is a enough?
    With the land being eaten up at an alarming rate should we not be trying to encourage more environmentally landscapes!
    Or is this just political pressure?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s