Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

I don't think I'd mind golf courses that much if they weren't such a sore reminder of hypocrisy. "Oh no we have no space left we cannot build more houses are you  mad?!!!" but having like a few dozen people take up a small village's worth of land to hit a little ball around with some sticks, well that's a-ok.

[Gups]

Don't get me wrong. I think the green belt designation is ridiculous. I really hope Labour have the balls to change the policy.

BUt if it remains in place, better that the land is used for golf courses then just being fenced off waste/scub land.

And believe me, with very, very few exceptions owners of golf courses would jump at the chance to sell to housing developers.

[crazy canuck]

Don't get me wrong. I think the green belt designation is ridiculous. I really hope Labour have the balls to change the policy.

BUt if it remains in place, better that the land is used for golf courses then just being fenced off waste/scub land.

And believe me, with very, very few exceptions owners of golf courses would jump at the chance to sell to housing developers.

Why would it be better to have a water wasting heavily fertilized and carbon intensive use rather than allowing the green belt to be an actual green belt?

[Gups]

Fait point CC. I was thinking of the economic benefit.

[crazy canuck]

Fait point CC. I was thinking of the economic benefit.

There is a middle road.  Stanely Park in Vancouver has large areas where no development is permitted and, on the fringes, there are recreational and public use spaces.  But the key is that all of it is open for public use.  From an economic perspective it is a huge draw for tourists. 

A golf course is a space that few can enjoy.

[Gups]

Fait point CC. I was thinking of the economic benefit.

There is a middle road.  Stanely Park in Vancouver has large areas where no development is permitted and, on the fringes, there are recreational and public use spaces.  But the key is that all of it is open for public use.  From an economic perspective it is a huge draw for tourists. 

A golf course is a space that few can enjoy.

Yeah. That's not what the green belt is. It's shorthand for an area in which new development is prohibited except in special circumstances. It's aimed at preventing urban sprawl (so there are green belts around London, Brimingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds and other large cities) rather than protecting or creatng public facilites (we do have various parks which do that and of course have even greater protection.

[Josquius]

Tbh I'm pretty ok with the green belt generally. In certain unique cases it could do with modification but overall stopping sprawl is usually a good thing.
As I've said before though the trouble in the UK is we have tight laws to prevent sprawl AND tight laws to prevent further development in already existing urban areas.... So fuck all gets done.
My priority would be heavily weakening the latter rather than the former. Not a pure 100%:0% but the balance leaning that way.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah in fairness I wouldn't mind green belt plus building like Hong Kong

Been to Poland a couple of times recently and I generally like their approach of a fairly small (fake) historic centre/old town but beyond that, it feels like anything goes. It's also slightly changed my mind on pastiche.

Like my flat is in a conservation area (just). There are some nice terraced streets but I'm just not sure it really justifies status like that.

[Josquius]

I wouldn't quite go for anything goes but I would definitely modify the laws to make building upwards much easier. Up to say 2 stories above the average in an area and it's basically a non issue. Balances keeping the character of an area with getting the building we need.

The area where I wouldn't keep the green belt of course would be within a certain perimeter of train stations. Those little villages with their own station must be subsumed beneath new towns.

[crazy canuck]

Fait point CC. I was thinking of the economic benefit.

There is a middle road.  Stanely Park in Vancouver has large areas where no development is permitted and, on the fringes, there are recreational and public use spaces.  But the key is that all of it is open for public use.  From an economic perspective it is a huge draw for tourists. 

A golf course is a space that few can enjoy.

Yeah. That's not what the green belt is. It's shorthand for an area in which new development is prohibited except in special circumstances. It's aimed at preventing urban sprawl (so there are green belts around London, Brimingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds and other large cities) rather than protecting or creatng public facilites (we do have various parks which do that and of course have even greater protection.

But if one can build a golf course on those lands, surely one could also create a less manicured environment that is also available to the public.

[Sheilbh]

But if one can build a golf course on those lands, surely one could also create a less manicured environment that is also available to the public.

It's mostly agricultural land. Though there are footpaths, national trails, rights of way etc through those areas. There are also parks in the green belt - but as Gups says (and the name hints) they're really just belts around the cities to stop sprawl. Within them it's just relatively standard mix of rural land. There are villages, parks, golf courses, playing fields, farmland - and also some national park, AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) etc:


And in fairness given the policy goal was to stop cities from sprawling out any further - they've been incredibly effective.

[Gups]

Fait point CC. I was thinking of the economic benefit.

There is a middle road.  Stanely Park in Vancouver has large areas where no development is permitted and, on the fringes, there are recreational and public use spaces.  But the key is that all of it is open for public use.  From an economic perspective it is a huge draw for tourists. 

A golf course is a space that few can enjoy.

Yeah. That's not what the green belt is. It's shorthand for an area in which new development is prohibited except in special circumstances. It's aimed at preventing urban sprawl (so there are green belts around London, Brimingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds and other large cities) rather than protecting or creatng public facilites (we do have various parks which do that and of course have even greater protection.

But if one can build a golf course on those lands, surely one could also create a less manicured environment that is also available to the public.

Why would you do that if you were the owner?

[Gups]

I wouldn't quite go for anything goes but I would definitely modify the laws to make building upwards much easier. Up to say 2 stories above the average in an area and it's basically a non issue. Balances keeping the character of an area with getting the building we need.

The area where I wouldn't keep the green belt of course would be within a certain perimeter of train stations. Those little villages with their own station must be subsumed beneath new towns.

You make it sound like it's really easy to chuck an extra couple of stories onto a building. It really is not - planning is not the issue so much as foundations, exiting occupiers, rights of light for neighbours etc. Outside of prime locations, it's just not economic.

[Josquius]

I wouldn't quite go for anything goes but I would definitely modify the laws to make building upwards much easier. Up to say 2 stories above the average in an area and it's basically a non issue. Balances keeping the character of an area with getting the building we need.

The area where I wouldn't keep the green belt of course would be within a certain perimeter of train stations. Those little villages with their own station must be subsumed beneath new towns.

You make it sound like it's really easy to chuck an extra couple of stories onto a building. It really is not - planning is not the issue so much as foundations, exiting occupiers, rights of light for neighbours etc. Outside of prime locations, it's just not economic.

I was thinking more about new buildings.
Though making full loft conversions less of a legal pita would be something that goes hand in hand.

[crazy canuck]

Fait point CC. I was thinking of the economic benefit.

There is a middle road.  Stanely Park in Vancouver has large areas where no development is permitted and, on the fringes, there are recreational and public use spaces.  But the key is that all of it is open for public use.  From an economic perspective it is a huge draw for tourists. 

A golf course is a space that few can enjoy.

Yeah. That's not what the green belt is. It's shorthand for an area in which new development is prohibited except in special circumstances. It's aimed at preventing urban sprawl (so there are green belts around London, Brimingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds and other large cities) rather than protecting or creatng public facilites (we do have various parks which do that and of course have even greater protection.

But if one can build a golf course on those lands, surely one could also create a less manicured environment that is also available to the public.

Why would you do that if you were the owner?

You wouldn't.  That is why government is needed.