It may not be the ideal solution for some but you have to consider that Sheffield has plenty of greenspaces / land and house prices in this region aren't anyway near comparable to wages, and most people would rather have their own garden space than somewhere they have to share, and now most of the tower blocks have gone because people are not willing to live in them anymore this is another reason why we have to build on more land.

I know there's the environmental issues which have come up of late for the secularised society's which is essential for these people as it gives them a purpose - something new to believe in, but we shouldn't allow them to stop everyday people from having decent reasonable priced quality homes to live in.

Also when you consider that most people in some areas just use the green spaces as convenient dumping grounds they are obviously not going to be missed, and overall people seem more concerned with Meadowhall been flooded than a local park so is it really a big deal if we build on more greenspaces in Sheffield?

oh noooooooooo no more building please

I think we should transfer part of the greenbelt into the low lying areas and make them into new parks. So we loose some unused green belt on the outskirts of the city for new housing, while in the centre we knock down old housing industry in the flood plane. This way we make the city even greener and improve life for everyone, gain floodplane which will help the next time we have flooding, and people will be able to afford insurance.

I fervently believe that lobby groups like the CPRE are basically protecting wealthy landowners, and we are being told lies about land use in the UK. All you have to do is drive across the country by motorway to see that about 95% of England is grass. We need to improve cities by allowing enough building land so that young people can afford decent housing, and if that means that some of the Gentry loose a bit of grouse moor, then too bad. Most of them are also related to, or actual Bank Directors so it is in their interest to squeeze the poor people (us) into smaller and smaller houses in the middle of cities so that they can continue to rake it in from mortgage payments on spiraling land prices.

You just have to look at the trouble with Northern Rock, it is all related. People being given a record amount of mortages.

There's a fair amount of building taking place - it's just inappropriate for needs.


Be realistic - developers build houses for profit, and in recent years developments in 'city living' and 'loft living' have been regarded as cash cows. Unfortunately, such places only provide for a particular, freuqntly young and mobile, segment of society and don't appear to be built with community development in view.

Large numbers of us don't regard green spaces as dumping grounds, and it's likely that green belt development is more expensive in total cost of building and occupation that land already previously sued for housing. For example, once you get away from the suburbs you're frequemntly in a position of having to lay in roads, infrastructure like electricity, gas, water, etc.

I woudl prefer to see proper use made of existing land, empty building lots and such.

.

I woudl prefer to see proper use made of existing land, empty building lots and such.

Same here Joe - there are hundreds of potential homes to be had in buildings that already exist. How many of the spaces over shops and businesses could be converted into desirable accomadation?
Plenty, I'll be bound.

I appreciate that soem areas of Sheffield are unsuitable for accomodation because the land is contaminated. But as there appears to be money available to clean up the East End of London for the Olympics, I'm sure HMG could find something to clean up land soured by industry that helped the nation for over a century....

No.
Next question, please....

South Yorkshire planning/investment bodies have recognised that there is sufficient brownfield building space for the next 15 years or so.

No need to use green spaces.

no we should not, all this green thing and they want to build housers on green spacers just mad in it!!

There are still brown field sites that have not been used for example the old gas works and power station at neepsend plus also in that area the huge amount of land near the former ski villiage , remember this area was once full of houses.

I am sure there are other examples of land in other parts of the city that peole can identify - just look at the amount of railway and former railway land that is about surely some of this could be used for small pockets of housing .


One of the current problems is when we do build houses were are building for the top end of the market ie yoppy flats in the town centre at £800 plus a month, we need to be looking a more affordable social houseing.

I am originally from London, and moved to Sheffield a decade ago.

When I first arrived, I was overwhelmed by the beauty of the countryside around the city. I still am. Don't spoil it: it's a rare thing. And it can be seen from right in the centre of the city, which is rarer still.

There is a lot of derelict land and buildings in Sheffield still. Why not develop that before destroying the countryside? It makes sense: there are all ready utilities connected or available, and access is easier. Not only that, but schools, hospitals and shops are more accessible from those sites than from the more remote places. And it's not like these places have to be free from all green spaces: if the planning is done right, gardens and parks can be incorporated into the development to give space for people to relax. It's got to be the best way to proceed.

South Yorkshire planning/investment bodies have recognised that there is sufficient brownfield building space for the next 15 years or so.

No need to use green spaces.

The official classification of "brownfield sites" include building on the gardens of suburban homes.

Developers buy a house with a largish garden, demolish the house and build appartment blocks as densely as they can get away with and then the council can say they are fulfilling their targets for building on brownfield sites.

Some of the housing estates could be redeveloped to make something more acceptable. I agree there are plenty of yuppy flats but not much affordable "family housing". There are some areas which could certainly be cheered up.

Don't forget that the greenspaces absorb rainwater so if you build on them the next flood could be worse.

Sheffield's unique selling point is the amout of green space it has.
To build on it would be a crime.

I appreciate that soem areas of Sheffield are unsuitable for accomodation because the land is contaminated. But as there appears to be money available to clean up the East End of London for the Olympics, I'm sure HMG could find something to clean up land soured by industry that helped the nation for over a century....

Never wondered where they put the contaminated soil from the clean-up operation then?

Large numbers of us don't regard green spaces as dumping grounds, and it's likely that green belt development is more expensive in total cost of building and occupation that land already previously sued for housing. For example, once you get away from the suburbs you're frequemntly in a position of having to lay in roads, infrastructure like electricity, gas, water, etc.

.

So why is virtually every house where the garden backs onto some green space up here has fly tipped rubbish dumped there? I don't think someone would drive from the other end of town then walk along a path to dump a fridge freezer or whateer it is directly behind someones garden, do you?

Don't forget that the greenspaces absorb rainwater so if you build on them the next flood could be worse.

They could build houses with big gardens? or just have loads of green spaces in Attercliffe for example at the bottom of the hills

There's a fair amount of building taking place - it's just inappropriate for needs.

Don't take this the wrong way, but in a market research type of way, what do people think is actually needed these days, rather than what is being built ?

Be realistic - developers build houses for profit

and.... what is a fair profit ?

Is it the case that all the council housing and new apartments in the city centre are taken? I suspect not and on that basis it could be said that there isn't a shortage of housing stock. However, many people aspire to live in detached 4/5 bedroom houses with big gardens (in areas with good schools, low crime etc) and these are expensive in terms of land. Personally, I'd like to retain the green spaces but in today's society where people are not necessarily content with limited living space despite the shrinking in the number of people per household, I fear that money rules and conservation of green spaces is a secondary consideration. It's a shame because once the green belt has gone it'll never be replaced.

I think our city's developers need to get a reality check, we are not London. Speak to developers in London, and they will tell you that the yuppy appartment market is dead. People just don't want them anymore. People want family housing. So why in heaven's name are appartments still going up everywhere here? It's crazy.

The council are selling off the city's heritage and beauty. Of course, change has to happen but not at any cost. Look at what happened to the Palais/Locarno - it should have been listed - now it's a facade - a monument for all to see how wreckless our council is. Protect green spaces for future generations. As beryllium says, once it's gone, it's gone.

I think our city's developers need to get a reality check, we are not London. Speak to developers in London, and they will tell you that the yuppy appartment market is dead. People just don't want them anymore. People want family housing. So why in heaven's name are appartments still going up everywhere here? It's crazy.

The council are selling off the city's heritage and beauty. Of course, change has to happen but not at any cost. Look at what happened to the Palais/Locarno - it should have been listed - now it's a facade - a monument for all to see how wreckless our council is. Protect green spaces for future generations. As beryllium says, once it's gone, it's gone.

HERE, HERE!!!:clap:

Why not allow building on the greenbelt on the condition that any new property must have a grass roof? You'd still have a green belt, it'd just be higher up!

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to build on green belt land in Sheffield either now or in the future.
When you look at the number of brown field sites the city has as well as large areas of council estates (like Parson Cross) that still need redeveloping then, in a city like Sheffield that has a fairly static population, there is no need to go anywhere near the green belt to provide the city's housing needs.
This housing need can still be achieved, as Greenweb mentioned, even by reducing or eradicating development in the valley bottoms, especially higher up the valleys (Upper Don, Loxley etc as opposed to the Lower Don Valley) creating more flood plains thereby slowing down the rate of flow into the more built up parts of the city.

Why not allow building on the greenbelt on the condition that any new property must have a grass roof? You'd still have a green belt, it'd just be higher up!

Who's going to maintain all these green roofs pray tell?:huh:

Who's going to maintain all these green roofs pray tell?:huh:

Make it a condition of claiming unemployment benefit that every claimant must tend a rooftop garden in their area. They could each be give a jet pack, on the condition that they return it to the DSS should they ever find full time employment.

Obvious, isn't it?

Why not allow building on the greenbelt on the condition that any new property must have a grass roof? You'd still have a green belt, it'd just be higher up!

I think there's a technical problem incorporating the streams and rivers!

People want family housing. So why in heaven's name are appartments still going up everywhere here? It's crazy.



Could it be anything to do with the seemingly ever increasing number of young graduates / professionals in the city - the vast bulk who are single or couples without kids??

It may not be the ideal solution for some but you have to consider that Sheffield has plenty of greenspaces / land and house prices in this region aren't anyway near comparable to wages, and most people would rather have their own garden space than somewhere they have to share, and now most of the tower blocks have gone because people are not willing to live in them anymore this is another reason why we have to build on more land.

I know there's the environmental issues which have come up of late for the secularised society's which is essential for these people as it gives them a purpose - something new to believe in, but we shouldn't allow them to stop everyday people from having decent reasonable priced quality homes to live in.

Also when you consider that most people in some areas just use the green spaces as convenient dumping grounds they are obviously not going to be missed, and overall people seem more concerned with Meadowhall been flooded than a local park so is it really a big deal if we build on more greenspaces in Sheffield?

No No No & No. If we build in green spaces we will end up with over priced houseing that the "local people" cannot afford.

Take Wadsley Park Village how many houses on there have been for sale over 6 months.

Not only do you need to look at the distrubtion to the landscape which I think would be v bad you also have to take into account traffic and local education. Take the planned Loxley Township what a nightmare that would be with even more kids trying to get into Bradfield and cars going through Malin Bridge.

If houesing is such a problem in Sheffield stop building bloody blocks of flats in town (Park Hill development) and develop nice houseing estates like what they did at the old Kelvin site. Don't know the estate but it looks nice.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to build on green belt land in Sheffield either now or in the future.
When you look at the number of brown field sites the city has as well as large areas of council estates (like Parson Cross) that still need redeveloping then, in a city like Sheffield that has a fairly static population, there is no need to go anywhere near the green belt to provide the city's housing needs.
This housing need can still be achieved, as Greenweb mentioned, even by reducing or eradicating development in the valley bottoms, especially higher up the valleys (Upper Don, Loxley etc as opposed to the Lower Don Valley) creating more flood plains thereby slowing down the rate of flow into the more built up parts of the city.


Who has told you that sheffield has a static population ? The population is growing at quite a pace. It has been for the last decade and was growing slower the decade before. Many graduates settle in the city after studying here, we also have an influx of people from other countries, and an enormous new eastern european community. Which are making the new DoncasterSheffield airport extremely busy with polish flights.

Much of the pressure on housing is caused by modern problems like adults living alone in houses which would have been family houses 30 years ago. And many council/housing scheme houses which were bought in right to buy and not being replaced.
There are still large areas in the city which could have houses built on them but clearly there is also a market for city centre apartments as many new builds, currently under construction are mostly sold. It is debateable if anyone will actually be living in some of these places as keeping a brand new empty flat seems to gain in value better than a high interest savings account.

so this wisewood/myers merger is goin to be built on a green space , cheers labour:hihi::hihi:

Could it be anything to do with the seemingly ever increasing number of young graduates / professionals in the city - the vast bulk who are single or couples without kids??

Errr...obviously not! Speak to Sheffield property developers, or property developers anywhere in England, and they will tell you the same. The bottom has dropped out of the market for yuppy appartments. Graduates especially, when they've graduated, want gardens, like anybody else, heaven knows they've earned one - all that studying.

Want doesn't always get. Have you checked the title of the OP? ;)

The ONLY thing Sheffield has going for it is the amount of green space. Attempting to copy other cities by having fancy shopping centres or high rise blocks of flats will only ever make it a poor second or third place.

If the council wanted to do something really imaginary and ambitious they would create more parks. This is the only image of the city that will make it stand out in the decades to come.

It's always struck me that there could be some re-balancing done in Sheffield. There are a lot of former houses of all sizes occupied as offices around the city, while there's office space to spare. So why can't the businesses move into purpose-built modern offices, and let the former houses be converted back to their original use? It would also ease the daytime parking problems in some areas where there is no parking space on these former domestic properties for the number of people who work there, so they block up the roads with their cars. And on some housing estates the new management has set up local offices. A good idea, except that they've done so in houses intended for families. Surely there's a corner on most estates where they could set up office?

It may not be the ideal solution for some but you have to consider that Sheffield has plenty of greenspaces / land and house prices in this region aren't anyway near comparable to wages, and most people would rather have their own garden space than somewhere they have to share, and now most of the tower blocks have gone because people are not willing to live in them anymore this is another reason why we have to build on more land.

I know there's the environmental issues which have come up of late for the secularised society's which is essential for these people as it gives them a purpose - something new to believe in, but we shouldn't allow them to stop everyday people from having decent reasonable priced quality homes to live in.

Also when you consider that most people in some areas just use the green spaces as convenient dumping grounds they are obviously not going to be missed, and overall people seem more concerned with Meadowhall been flooded than a local park so is it really a big deal if we build on more greenspaces in Sheffield?

more greenspaces? the lovely greenspace we have near us is being turned into a housing estate so why would they build more greenspaces?

Yes build in some greenspace- if its well considered and planned. Unfortunately it would always be a polictical decision.
Cities and towns have developed and grown since the dark ages (sort of..), it makes no sense at all to think they are now at their limits, just the right size and theres no more need for growth. If the populations rising we need more space- simple as that - for industry as well as housing.
Where will all the industry go when houses have been built on the brownfield land? Either abroad or in what is now the greenbelt.

Why should people work hard to earn a living that will only buy them a house with space equivalent to the old back to back houses and slum dwellings of yesteryear, whilst millions upon millions of acres of land sits idly all around them.

Who has told you that sheffield has a static population ? The population is growing at quite a pace. It has been for the last decade and was growing slower the decade before. Many graduates settle in the city after studying here, we also have an influx of people from other countries, and an enormous new eastern european community. Which are making the new DoncasterSheffield airport extremely busy with polish flights.

Much of the pressure on housing is caused by modern problems like adults living alone in houses which would have been family houses 30 years ago. And many council/housing scheme houses which were bought in right to buy and not being replaced.
There are still large areas in the city which could have houses built on them but clearly there is also a market for city centre apartments as many new builds, currently under construction are mostly sold. It is debateable if anyone will actually be living in some of these places as keeping a brand new empty flat seems to gain in value better than a high interest savings account.

The city's population has remained pretty constant over the past 50 years at approximately 500,000 to 550,000. There is enough space to take a population of over 600,000 without the need to touch the green belt. Of course the exact figure would depend on the density and type of housing built but this figure also allows enough space for commerce and industry to flourish.
The housing scheme at Waverley (just over the boundary in Rotherham) will contain 3000 homes. That's providing housing for 9000 to 12000 people as most of these will be family homes.
As for city centre flats; the market is pretty stagnant with some developments upto 40% empty and those that are successful are virtually full of students.

There definately shouldn't be any buidling on green space, Sheffield has adequate brown field sites to accommodate any housing expansions.

The ONLY thing Sheffield has going for it is the amount of green space. Attempting to copy other cities by having fancy shopping centres or high rise blocks of flats will only ever make it a poor second or third place.

If the council wanted to do something really imaginary and ambitious they would create more parks. This is the only image of the city that will make it stand out in the decades to come.

On the other hand I disagree with KenH on this; rather than more parks I'd like to see the ones we currently have adequately maintained and with extra facilities. For instance does your local park have a playground? If so was it provided by the council or some local community organisation? Sheffield is one of the countries greenest cities however our spend on Parks, Woodlands & Countryside is pitiful!

Yes build in some greenspace- if its well considered and planned. Unfortunately it would always be a polictical decision.
Cities and towns have developed and grown since the dark ages (sort of..), it makes no sense at all to think they are now at their limits, just the right size and theres no more need for growth. If the populations rising we need more space- simple as that - for industry as well as housing.
Where will all the industry go when houses have been built on the brownfield land? Either abroad or in what is now the greenbelt.

Why should people work hard to earn a living that will only buy them a house with space equivalent to the old back to back houses and slum dwellings of yesteryear, whilst millions upon millions of acres of land sits idly all around them.

There has to be a limit sometime and somewhere theripsaw. The alternative is too frightening to imagine.
So; when and where theripsaw? Why not here and now?
A lot of people are quite happy to have a small living space that's easier and cheaper to maintain. You only have to look around the city's estates to see large gardens that are unkempt and large properties that only now are beginning to get the investment that they should have received for the last 50 years.

There has to be a limit sometime and somewhere theripsaw. The alternative is too frightening to imagine.
So; when and where theripsaw? Why not here and now?


Because people have to live in houses and theres not enough houses, and more and more people wanting them. It would be nice to preserve the green space, but not realistic.

Im not saying build in the green belt, but build new towns in the vast areas of farmland that lies over probably 90% of the country

Because people have to live in houses and theres not enough houses, and more and more people wanting them. It would be nice to preserve the green space, but not realistic.

Im not saying build in the green belt, but build new towns in the vast areas of farmland that lies over probably 90% of the country

The planet is covered by far more sea than land. Instead of building houses for people to live in, wouldn;t it make more sense to instigate a mass boat-building programme?

The planet is covered by far more sea than land. Instead of building houses for people to live in, wouldn;t it make more sense to instigate a mass boat-building programme?

Just think of it - we could all live on giant arks in the middle of the ocean. Bit of a shame for those of us who suffer from sea-sickness, but there you go... :P

StarSparkle

Errr...obviously not! Speak to Sheffield property developers, or property developers anywhere in England, and they will tell you the same. The bottom has dropped out of the market for yuppy appartments. Graduates especially, when they've graduated, want gardens, like anybody else, heaven knows they've earned one - all that studying.

How come all the ones I know are quite happy with apartments - and since when have 20 - 30 year olds been in to gardens? Too busy working their way up the career ladder or partying.

Because people have to live in houses and theres not enough houses, and more and more people wanting them. It would be nice to preserve the green space, but not realistic.

Im not saying build in the green belt, but build new towns in the vast areas of farmland that lies over probably 90% of the country

Yes, build some newtowns in some ugly part of the country with good communication links. Leave Sheffield's attractive green belt alone. The western half of it is in the Peak National Park anyway and subject to stricter planning regulations

Definitely not. Green space should be defended tooth and nail in Sheffield. It's one of the things that makes the city what it is. There is lots of brownfield space available and if this runs out, don't build anymore.

I'd much prefer developers to build upwards rather than outwards. There's nothing wrong with high rise per se, it's just that it's done badly at the moment. I spent the summer in Turin and I also lived there three years ago. The housing there is high density with everyone living in four or five storey apartment buildings, but yet there's still beautiful buildings and nice streets.

I'd rather see a high-density city centre and parks maintained than a creeping urban sprawl and parks being devoured.

Because people have to live in houses and theres not enough houses, and more and more people wanting them. It would be nice to preserve the green space, but not realistic.

Im not saying build in the green belt, but build new towns in the vast areas of farmland that lies over probably 90% of the country

Absolute garbage! I don't see thousands of homeless people roaming the streets of Sheffield.
Yes there does need to be better management of housing services to make sure ALL people's housing needs are catered for but that can easily be done within the existing boundaries of the city.
I'm no eco-warrior (driving around in my 4x4) but human beings are, without doubt, the most environmentally damaging species that has ever lived and there needs to be a limit to the world wide population if environmental and economic sustainability are to be achieved. That applies to this country as much as anywhere else so, theripsaw, I'd like you to give me some figures (in millions) as to the limit that this country can take. Just how much of this farmland can be turned into housing and how are we going to feed these extra people?

Definitely not. Green space should be defended tooth and nail in Sheffield. It's one of the things that makes the city what it is. There is lots of brownfield space available and if this runs out, don't build anymore.

I'd much prefer developers to build upwards rather than outwards. There's nothing wrong with high rise per se, it's just that it's done badly at the moment. I spent the summer in Turin and I also lived there three years ago. The housing there is high density with everyone living in four or five storey apartment buildings, but yet there's still beautiful buildings and nice streets.

I'd rather see a high-density city centre and parks maintained than a creeping urban sprawl and parks being devoured.

What he said! :thumbsup:

I'd much prefer developers to build upwards rather than outwards.


Why upwards? Why not tunnel downwards and build more homes underground?

What he said! :thumbsup:

The problem is Paulmat, the website that you keep promoting is producing a landscape nothing like Turin. More like Milton Keynes in the sky!

It's always struck me that there could be some re-balancing done in Sheffield. There are a lot of former houses of all sizes occupied as offices around the city, while there's office space to spare. So why can't the businesses move into purpose-built modern offices, and let the former houses be converted back to their original use? ...

I like this idea! Broomhill has some splendid houses that are used as offices. Put Supertram up Fulwood Road so that the new residents can get to their places of work in town and the job's a good un! :) Mind you, town's not very far to walk, is it?

How come all the ones I know are quite happy with apartments - and since when have 20 - 30 year olds been in to gardens? Too busy working their way up the career ladder or partying.

They may be happy to rent them, temporarily, yes. But not when it comes to buying or thinking about the longer term. Unfortunately there aren't that many 20 year olds in a position to be looking to buy a property, people generally, are much older before they are in such a position now.

You only have to look on Google Earth to see the huge number of brown field sites across the city that will provide housing for many years to come and that is totally unsuitable for industry and commerce.

There has been too much Greenbelt land release, the people living near these areas haven't been taken into consideration all the Councils want is to rake in the Monday. Once the designated areas have been released to builders then no one will have a say in matters, I am concerned about the Social Housing Issue. I live in a lovely quite area with lovely greenbelt land at the end of our cresent and its a pleasure to be here.
A great deal of land is being released these fields will disappear along with the trees, plants and all other wildlife. The land is being used for social housing, I do realise people need homes but I do object about the amount that may be built in my area. Rona

Sheffield doesn't actually have a green belt, although the national park to its west is even more protected than a greenbelt would be. This issue is really just about the London commuter belt, not northern cities.

There's actually tonnes of brownfield sites all over Sheffield. What needs to happen is the gradual surburbanisation of east Sheffield to make that half of the city as desirable as Hillsborough, Walkley, Crookes, Broomhill, Woodseats, Heeley and Meersbrook etc.

There's actually tonnes of brownfield sites all over Sheffield. What needs to happen is the gradual surburbanisation of east Sheffield to make that half of the city as desirable as Hillsborough, Walkley, Crookes, Broomhill, Woodseats, Heeley and Meersbrook etc.

You need to take a look at this: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/sdf-proposals-map
it shows the proposed site allocations for different types of development in all areas of Sheffield.

The east end is a predominantly industrial / business area and the allocations of sites reflect that. One of the reasons that people want to live in many of the places you mention is because they are NOT in the middle of an industrial area.

In other established cities the ex-industrial areas are now some of the most desirable places to live!

The answer is more tower-blocks with concierge systems, gated rooftop gardens and parks within the complexes so people are safe, better amenities and address the racism problem, as many of our cities industrial areas are predominantly Asian.

We don't need more greenspace just maintain improve the current parks, football pitches etc we have.

Use should be made of empty housing before developers are allowed to build everywhere.

Sheffield doesn't actually have a green belt, ........

???

"a green belt"?

Sheffield certainly does have areas classified as "Green Belt" and affords them the protection that the class confers.

You need to take a look at this: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/sdf/sdf-proposals-map
it shows the proposed site allocations for different types of development in all areas of Sheffield.

The east end is a predominantly industrial / business area and the allocations of sites reflect that. One of the reasons that people want to live in many of the places you mention is because they are NOT in the middle of an industrial area.

Interesting, thanks.

I was thinking more just east of the A61, rather than right out east towards the M1 - areas like Parson Cross, Burngreave, Attercliffe, Gleadless etc. If these areas can be improved through regeneration and new surburban-style developments on brownfield land and made desirable, it would be far preferable to building on greenfield.

there is still plenty of space on gleedless it all could do with being rebuilt anyway .... :roll:

???

"a green belt"?

Sheffield certainly does have areas classified as "Green Belt" and affords them the protection that the class confers.

Here's a map of England's 14 green belts

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55383000/gif/_55383666_green_belts_464.gif.

The national park between Sheffield and Manachester is included, but Sheffield isn't encircled like the other cities - e.g. out towards Doncaster/Worksop etc.

We need to build more housing, but we also need to take into account the provision of green spaces. Land doing nothing is criminal.

We have one of the largest housing waiting lists in the country, if not the largest now.

We also have one of the highest allotment waiting lists too!

We need to be allocating land for both building housing and allotments, whilst preserving land to be used as parks, for shopping/industry/employment, for flooding/infrastructure, wildlife etc.

There has been too much Greenbelt land release, the people living near these areas haven't been taken into consideration all the Councils want is to rake in the Monday. Once the designated areas have been released to builders then no one will have a say in matters, I am concerned about the Social Housing Issue. I live in a lovely quite area with lovely greenbelt land at the end of our cresent and its a pleasure to be here.
A great deal of land is being released these fields will disappear along with the trees, plants and all other wildlife. The land is being used for social housing, I do realise people need homes but I do object about the amount that may be built in my area. Rona

Your concerns are very certainly common, people don't like change.

Out of interest, what was your crescent before your house was there?

Use should be made of empty housing before developers are allowed to build everywhere.

We should be emptying the land banks too. :)

Here's a map of England's 14 green belts

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55383000/gif/_55383666_green_belts_464.gif.

The national park between Sheffield and Manachester is included, but Sheffield isn't encircled like the other cities - e.g. out towards Doncaster/Worksop etc.

Take your map and raise you:

http://sheffield.devplan.org.uk/map.aspx?map=26&layers=all

I think we should transfer part of the greenbelt into the low lying areas and make them into new parks. So we loose some unused green belt on the outskirts of the city for new housing, while in the centre we knock down old housing industry in the flood plane. This way we make the city even greener and improve life for everyone, gain floodplain which will help the next time we have flooding, and people will be able to afford insurance.

I fervently believe that lobby groups like the CPRE are basically protecting wealthy landowners, and we are being told lies about land use in the UK. All you have to do is drive across the country by motorway to see that about 95% of England is grass. We need to improve cities by allowing enough building land so that young people can afford decent housing, and if that means that some of the Gentry loose a bit of grouse moor, then too bad. Most of them are also related to, or actual Bank Directors so it is in their interest to squeeze the poor people (us) into smaller and smaller houses in the middle of cities so that they can continue to rake it in from mortgage payments on spiraling land prices.

You just have to look at the trouble with Northern Rock, it is all related. People being given a record amount of mortages.
Brilliant post Muddy.
They could start by giving us the land back that they stole from the people in the first place.
The law arrests the man or woman who steels a goose from on the common.
But leaves the greater rascal loose who stole the common from the goose.

Yes buildings are much better than trees.

I'd rather have 1 shiny new tower block than 2 trees for example.

Only 11% of the UK is urbanised, would it really be that detrimental to us all if the increase of urbanisation in Britain increased to say 12%?

Only 11% of the UK is urbanised, would it really be that detrimental to us all if the increase of urbanisation in Britain increased to say 12%?

Not at all. Indeed, if we assigned the land to be built upon as common land, we could all benefit.

That won't happen though. The landbankers and landowners will get in first and take their coin, whilst the rest of us watch our country being sold in front of our eyes.

It is the Tory way.

Could you elaborate on how your theft and mass sterilisation plan is better than creating homes for people to live in?

Have you factored in the extra cardboard boxes and bunk beds for the offspring of those that your doctors miss?

There are still brown field sites that have not been used for example the old gas works and power station at neepsend plus also in that area the huge amount of land near the former ski villiage , remember this area was once full of houses.

I am sure there are other examples of land in other parts of the city that peole can identify - just look at the amount of railway and former railway land that is about surely some of this could be used for small pockets of housing .


One of the current problems is when we do build houses were are building for the top end of the market ie yoppy flats in the town centre at £800 plus a month, we need to be looking a more affordable social houseing.



I agree there is plenty of land. What is lacking is imagination and a willingness to solve the problem. Sheffield's wretched politicians just want to sit around blaming everyone else for their failures and waiting for handouts. When they get them they build expensive environmentally friendly 'modules' to prove their fashionably green credentials.

What people need is a roof over their head they can call their own in a place they can live in peace and look after their families. All over Europe people are living well in prefabs, wooden cabins and even freight containers. All are cheap housing options. On brown field sites the infrastructure is mostly in place so the costs work out even better.

The comrades at the Town Hall could solve the problem tomorrow if they tried but they are more interested in scoring stupid political points instead of solving problems. Eventually the penny will drop with those cowering in the Town Hall that people who have their own place pay TAX for them to squander. You can bet they won't have any difficulty understanding that concept.

So why is virtually every house where the garden backs onto some green space up here has fly tipped rubbish dumped there? I don't think someone would drive from the other end of town then walk along a path to dump a fridge freezer or whateer it is directly behind someones garden, do you?

Where is up here? Maybe it's not a general problem, but one specific to where you're looking.

I was thinking more just east of the A61, rather than right out east towards the M1 - areas like Parson Cross, Burngreave, Attercliffe, Gleadless etc. If these areas can be improved through regeneration and new surburban-style developments on brownfield land and made desirable, it would be far preferable to building on greenfield.

Where is the brownfield land in those areas for new housing?

Burngreave has already had a massive amount of regeneration money.

And, where is the money for all this coming from? The government has ended a great deal of the housing regeneration funding.

Where is up here? Maybe it's not a general problem, but one specific to where you're looking.

It was Gleadless Valley, but the same problem is prelevant in Parson Cross, Shiregreen, Manor, virtually anywhere in Sheffield with a high white trash population.

Could you elaborate on how your theft and mass sterilisation plan is better than creating homes for people to live in?

Have you factored in the extra cardboard boxes and bunk beds for the offspring of those that your doctors miss?

My plan? Or was the post aimed at Sibon?

[QUOTE=Peacock Lady;2643522]I am originally from London, and moved to Sheffield a decade ago.

When I first arrived, I was overwhelmed by the beauty of the countryside around the city. I still am. Don't spoil it: it's a rare thing. And it can be seen from right in the centre of the city, which is rarer still.

There is a lot of derelict land and buildings in Sheffield still. Why not develop that before destroying the countryside?

I am also from the south and I agree with this post entirely. I am amazed at the land that lies idle within Sheffield city limits. You could build an entire new town in the valley along the tram line to Hillsborough. The centre itself is dotted with derelict areas that could and should be converted to residential areas.

Large numbers of us don't regard green spaces as dumping grounds
It was Gleadless Valley, but the same problem is prelevant in Parson Cross, Shiregreen, Manor, virtually anywhere in Sheffield with a high white trash population.

Limited to specific areas then. Not the majority of Sheffield, the majority in fact behaving as the previous poster said and not dumping anything in green space or their own gardens.

You could build an entire new town in the valley along the tram line to Hillsborough.

I'm struggling to work out where exactly you mean. From Shalesmoor I guess, running along Infirmary road onto Middlewood road.
An area that has housing most of the way along it, starting with the housing around the Tesco's, the bottom of Upperthorpe then the bottom of Walkley, then into Hillsborough itself. Practically the entire length of the tram route there has housing on both sides, although to the lower side it turns into an commercial and industrial area towards Neepsend, although even that has new flats scattered throughout it now.

We carn't sell the houses up for sale now so no.

We carn't sell the houses up for sale now so no.

Reduce the price.

Easy credit has gone. Pent up building demand will soon lead to a building boom. Reduce now, or reduce even more later.

no we should not, all this green thing and they want to build housers on green spacers just mad in it!!

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090509032611/uncyclopedia/images/4/46/Grammar_Time.gif

No, no definitely no building on green sites. Brown sites yes. If we build on green sites they are gone for ever.

Reduce the price.
Who are you suggesting should do this?