Jess Phillips Red Box podcast

Will,listen later today thatbags. I don't agree on no vote for home owners living in green belts, many, many people vote the I'm alright Jack vote

Haven't time to listen now, but near me a substantial number of homeowners are involved in trying to stop building on green belt because of fears for local wildlife (including red squirrels). It is often local people who really want to protect the area they live in, it isn't "I'm all right Jack" It's trying to balance development with conservation and the developers are just exploiting the area.

So where does it stop? We take all the green belt, then we take public parks? No more back gardens for new builds " so sorry, haven't got room for gardens"

So where should developers build? In my area, we desperately need housing and every nook and cranny of brownfield land has been built on. This has resulted in serious traffic problems, no public space between the housing and no room for the new school which will have to built in the not so distant future.

There's plenty of green belt land without taking public parks.

There is a lot of brownbelt currently not built on around here, mostly because it has been used by industry and it will need some cleaning up before use, something developers don't want to do because it lowers their profits.

It's the exact opposite here. There has never been much industry, but the population is expanding rapidly, because it's become a dormitory town for London. There's a plan to build a completely new town of 40,000 houses, which I support.

Just shows how areas differ. Another problem here is that the green belt is in a popular area where house prices are high and brown belt is often in less desirable areas. Things are never as simple as they seem are they?

trish, daph, petra, any thoughts on the podcast generally?

I can't play it on this computer, thatbags, but I'll try later on another one.

Round here, the government's planning bods have said officially that new building in existing settlements is unsustainable, due to traffic, pollution, quality of life, etc. Any significant new building has to be on green belt land, currently used as low quality farm land/waste land.

The government has also said that the district needs to build 20,000 houses over the next ten (?) years, so there's a problem. The NIMBYs have been playing games for years and there's a chronic lack of housing. One farmer - the one with outline planning consent for 40,000 homes - stands to make a fortune and it's known that he holds the land through an offshore company. Apart from feeling a bit sick that he's going to make millions, a new town on his land makes sense, because it will attract funding for new schools, roads, etc.

thatbags sorry haven't managed to listen properly yet, things keep interrupting! Will try this evening when it should be quieter.