Jump to content


Should The Green Belt Be Developed?

Recommended Posts

Should Sheffield’s Green Belt be developed? This was recently debated at a council meeting held in January.

 

Sheffield needs to identify new areas where housing could be placed. Various options were considered including allowing development of Green Belt land which has become degraded.

 

There are ample derelict, underused and vacant areas of land within the city itself.  Why can not such areas be identified and developed upon instead? The council should show more flexibility in allowing development on such sites meaning the Green Belt can be protected.

 

Development of the Green Belt leads to more suburbs, far away from the city centre, meaning more private transport use, more reliance on cars. Such development only adds to climate change.

 

Development of the Green Belt is contrary to the concept of biodiversity net gain, with important boundary and buffer sites between residential and countryside areas being lost. Such areas act as important corridors for wildlife to move between green areas.

 

 Once the Green Belt is developed a dangerous precedent is set. If development is allowed on one area of the Green Belt, then why not allow it on another area? Such gradual chipping away could lead to the eventual loss of most of the Green Belt.

 

Furthermore, it could actively damage other land in the Green Belt. Landowners seeing development being permitted on ‘degraded’ areas could actively promote such degradation upon their own sites in order to gain future permission.

 

Is the council acting in the best interests of the cities residents if it allows the Green Belt to be developed? Earlier generations showed foresight and wisdom in creating the Green Belt. Let’s not let short term greed ruin what the cities green girdle. 

 

Mark Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who sets the rules is it the goverment? thought we had to build so many houses per year? i say build on other land,but is there enough land? lots of questions ie if we turn down a green belt housing area and dont meet goverment demands it could mean the goverment get the final say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cant have our population exploding and a green belt at the same time

 

Especially as we have to find homes for over 100,000 "asylum seekers" who arrive every year 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

We cant have our population exploding and a green belt at the same time

 

Especially as we have to find homes for over 100,000 "asylum seekers" who arrive every year 

 

 

No we don’t.

 

No asylum seekers, illegal immigrants or indeed any foreigners have landed on these shores since 1066.  I mean 2016.  Yes, I meant 2016.

 

It’s a known fact that no swarthy looking folks have entered the UK since we voted to leave the EU and started to control our own borders.

 

And anybody who says otherwise is a remoaning liar who should stop putting Britain down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack Grey said:

Especially as we have to find homes for over 100,000 "asylum seekers" who arrive every year 

 

 

We had around 38,000 people apply for asylum last year. Some of those will be allowed to remain. Overall, the total number of refugees living in the UK was 132,000, with a further 77,000 awaiting an asylum decision.

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

Oh, and all the ones coming over in boats from France? If their claim for asylum is refused, then if we were still in the EU we could have returned them to France. We can't do that any more. But at least we've taken back control...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

No we don’t.

 

No asylum seekers, illegal immigrants or indeed any foreigners have landed on these shores since 1066.  I mean 2016.  Yes, I meant 2016.

 

It’s a known fact that no swarthy looking folks have entered the UK since we voted to leave the EU and started to control our own borders.

 

And anybody who says otherwise is a remoaning liar who should stop putting Britain down.

🤣♥️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC haven’t we already built on green belt land? I seem to remember that the development at Jordanthorpe probably 30ish years ago was very contentious at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, walkermark said:

There are ample derelict, underused and vacant areas of land within the city itself.  Why can not such areas be identified and developed upon instead? The council should show more flexibility in allowing development on such sites meaning the Green Belt can be protected

Has anybody looked into how much it would cost to clean up and redevelop the former steelworks sites in Attercliffe?  The cleanup costs might make a project economically unfeasible.

 

Besides, those areas are heavily built-up and congested anyway.

 

If I ever live long enough to reach retirement age (and that's a distinct impossibility, given that the retirement age may continue to rise) I'd prefer to live somewhere green, quiet and pleasant, not some former industrial shed.  We're not all trendy hipsters who want to live on Kelham.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Has anybody looked into how much it would cost to clean up and redevelop the former steelworks sites in Attercliffe?  The cleanup costs might make a project economically unfeasible.

 

Besides, those areas are heavily built-up and congested anyway.

 

If I ever live long enough to reach retirement age (and that's a distinct impossibility, given that the retirement age may continue to rise) I'd prefer to live somewhere green, quiet and pleasant, not some former industrial shed.  We're not all trendy hipsters who want to live on Kelham.

Neither are a large majority of the residents in Kelham.  It has being under redevelopment with a drift towards residential for at least 20 + years.  It's bars, restaurants and venues attract crowds well into their grey hair years.

 

Can we stop going down the road of wild stereotypes.  Not every middle-aged person or retiree wants to live in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by fields with nothing more than a tin pot village shop 5 miles away.....    Some people enjoy living in a city centre and it's not all young, hipster student types. 

 

With some of the new central apartment developments attracting a price tag starting from £200,000, city living is certainly not simply a domain for the young crowd as they simply could not afford it.

 

The fact is that there has been some evolution in the world of work and the way people live. With the recession, many people living in big houses in the suburbs have found themselves having to downsize into smaller or even apartment living. Others, whose family have grown up and flown the nest are now deciding not to keep a big empty house and move somewhere smaller and more central so they can enjoy facilities in walking distance.

 

Now we have another factor, thanks to the recent change to home or hybrid working, where people formerly living in a run down shoe box bedsit in London are coming back up north where they realise they can get a huge new build apartment, nice townhouse or terrace on the fringes of of the town centre and a short walk to the station for those occasional office visits, for significantly less money each month.  

 

Such factors are changing the demands on the local housing market and also where people are choosing to live which does not fit into traditional default stereotyping.

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Has anybody looked into how much it would cost to clean up and redevelop the former steelworks sites in Attercliffe?  The cleanup costs might make a project economically unfeasible.

 

Besides, those areas are heavily built-up and congested anyway.

 

If I ever live long enough to reach retirement age (and that's a distinct impossibility, given that the retirement age may continue to rise) I'd prefer to live somewhere green, quiet and pleasant, not some former industrial shed.  We're not all trendy hipsters who want to live on Kelham.

 

 

 

Attercliffe will be the next goldrush for development in Sheffield

 

Its close to the tram, its 5 mins from the M1 and the land is cheap

 

I always thought that if i won the lottery i wouldve bought up as much land as possible in that area

 

And the council have just received a £17m grant for redevelopment in that area which will be immediately swallowed up by consultancy fees and newly formed "community projects"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's supposed to be a major redevelopment that SCC are involved in, Attercliffe Waterside,  for 700 or so homes but I'm sure I read  on The Star's website it's hit a funding problem & the developers won't start work on Attercliffe until they've finished other developments first. 

Edited by Baron99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2022 at 15:23, walkermark said:

Should Sheffield’s Green Belt be developed? This was recently debated at a council meeting held in January.

 

Sheffield needs to identify new areas where housing could be placed. Various options were considered including allowing development of Green Belt land which has become degraded.

 

There are ample derelict, underused and vacant areas of land within the city itself.  Why can not such areas be identified and developed upon instead? The council should show more flexibility in allowing development on such sites meaning the Green Belt can be protected.

 

Development of the Green Belt leads to more suburbs, far away from the city centre, meaning more private transport use, more reliance on cars. Such development only adds to climate change.

 

Development of the Green Belt is contrary to the concept of biodiversity net gain, with important boundary and buffer sites between residential and countryside areas being lost. Such areas act as important corridors for wildlife to move between green areas.

 

 Once the Green Belt is developed a dangerous precedent is set. If development is allowed on one area of the Green Belt, then why not allow it on another area? Such gradual chipping away could lead to the eventual loss of most of the Green Belt.

 

Furthermore, it could actively damage other land in the Green Belt. Landowners seeing development being permitted on ‘degraded’ areas could actively promote such degradation upon their own sites in order to gain future permission.

 

Is the council acting in the best interests of the cities residents if it allows the Green Belt to be developed? Earlier generations showed foresight and wisdom in creating the Green Belt. Let’s not let short term greed ruin what the cities green girdle. 

 

Mark Walker

Agree - there’s plenty of space within the boundaries of the green belt.

23 hours ago, Jack Grey said:

We cant have our population exploding and a green belt at the same time

 

Especially as we have to find homes for over 100,000 "asylum seekers" who arrive every year 

 

 

Ah the old - “it’s the asylum seekers fault” argument. How tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.