Overpriced Property Values, Lack of Availability, Generation Rent, Soul Less Estates, - these are some of the issues.
There is an understandable great resistance amongst people about building housing on 'Green Belt' land, for we all love the countryside - don't we ? . . .
Successive governments have maintained the policy which protects the green belt, which has been seen for generations as sacrosanct. This has led to building on 'Brownfield' sites within towns and villages, often cramming as many properties as possible into what are often small areas between existing properties.
In many cases the character of a peaceful village or hamlet has been irrevocably changed by the addition of a large number of houses within it's borders. To make matters worse, invariably the character of these new houses pays little heed to the vernacular already present. The new ones are virtually what one would find in large cities or conurbations; the historic character of an attractive location is thus diluted. . . .
Consider an alternative approach : In selectively reassessing the value of Green Belt land. . .
- There is a great deal of difference between the attractive small fields and hedgerows of some parts of our countryside and the vast prairies, which give evidence of years of Intensive Agriculture, where trees and hedges have been ploughed up. These areas have become ecological deserts, devoid of insect, bird and small mammals. Such areas have often been subjected to years of spraying with chemicals, designed to increase the productivity of the land. - It's all been about yealds.
Agricultural run-off, pollution of watercourses, the decimation of our native species, butterflies and other insects, birds and so on has been the result.
- Are we doing the right thing in 'protecting' such land against development for housing ?
- Would not a new village or hamlet within these vast areas actually add value to the environment ?
- Would not the wildlife return, to an extent, to the borders and gardens of these new homes ?
- Do we not need to be a lot more selective and re-evaluate what is worth protection and what is not ?
After all - people have value, as do green fields. . . they need somewhere to live, to bring up their children, to contribute to society. If that environment is good - will it not enhance their quality of life and appreciation of the natural world ?
Stephen0033 Blog (1)