It's being knocked down to send out a message to anybody thinking of trying something similar, not just for the sake of it!

I accept that. Still seems a daft decision to me, but I have always thought green belt rules are ridiculous. We are living in an ever-expanding nation and more and more people live outside of traditional family units meaning even more need for more accommodation and the Government knows we need thousands and thousands more properties building, yet silly rules stop properties being built.

Seriously – why does it matter what colour has been arbitrarily assigned to a piece of land? Why can't any land-owner build where he wants? Every single house was once a nice green field.

I live in a conservation area and built a shed in my back garden without the required planning permission
that was nearly three years ago, only one more year and I can move in

I have always thought green belt rules are ridiculous.

So you wouldn't have a problem at all with our whole country being concreted, villages sprawling and much less countryside to play with? I think you're on the wrong forum MF – "concrete and brick world" is over there somewhere, that's where I got the gem about the planned development near Malham.

See the lovely location he built it in. Fab place to have your 'castle' 😉

here

Note all the tracks no doubt from racing his quad bikes.

i remember when i worked in betws,i was asked to put my name on a petition to stop a house being torn down up in the woods.
i said no much to the shock of the small crowd who had made it their aim to save the blokes house. he's a nice bloke they said I know i said but thats not the fekking point is it.i would love to build my own gaff up in the hills but its not allowed.
as you can see MF i still dont know how to write.

So you wouldn't have a problem at all with our whole country being concreted, villages sprawling and much less countryside to play with?

I wouldn't have a problem with any development that is required to support the growing population. And I live on a property backing on to greenfields and areas of special scientific interest. I have watched as permissions have been granted for some 20,000 (IIRC) properties being built by 2021 in order to support the need. Some of that development is coming to a field near me – I know it is only a matter of time until they give permission for builds in the field next to our home (rejected several times in the 80s and 90s) and I lose our view over to Stainburn and the Yorkshire Dales.

If this development wasn't allowed, where do the people without homes go? The ones on high incomes can afford to buy, those on lower incomes are priced out (even moreso than now).

but I have always thought green belt rules are ridiculous

That is one of the stupidiest things I have read on here. "Green belt" is just as the name suggests, a belt of green around urban sprawl. Sometimes development can be permitted, if the local authority is corrupt enough. Green belt legislation *should* make it as difficult as possible to build on it. Unless of course you really like road biking…

If this development wasn't allowed, where do the people without homes go?

Never heard of urban regeneration. Try driving into Liverpool along Edge Lane. Hundreds of beautiful three story properties boarded up. Wrong, wrong wrong. Go to any urban sprawl and you will see countless empty properties and brownfield sites lying idle.

If this development wasn't allowed, where do the people without homes go?

To houses built not on green belt land – there is plenty enough of that around to build on you know (including the field outside the back of my house – not much of a view, but would be a shame not to be able to look out of the window at sheep – though would reluctantly accept there was no fundamental reason not to build there as it's not GB, and we knew that when we bought).

I've always thought the notion of "needing" more houses is a bit of an odd one. MY feeling is the government wants to build more houses so that people can be good little consumers and buy more stuff etc. I mean, if we're so short of housing where are the hordes of homeless people?

Anyway, they should knock down the pikey mansion IMO, that'll learn 'em! 😈

sharkbait – I was wondering where it is; will try to ride over to have a look sometime.

mastiles_fanylion – Member
I accept that. Still seems a daft decision to me,

IF you think its a daft decision and they didn't do that then whats to stop any one from doing this? How would you go about enforcing the rules?

I live near this idiot. And I say tear it down. He'd been trying to invoke some old medieval law about every man having a right to a castle. He's quite clearly not got his marbles.

maybe they should make him surrender sufficient suitable land for low-cost housing, maybe 3 houses (or a pump track maybe ?)

Video on BBC website now – Farmer loses high court bid to save hidden castle:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8497285.stm?ls

Coyote – I agree that there are countless properties stood empty and they should be utilised wherever possible, but that isn't the answer, it is only a small part of the answer. We live in an evergrowing society – if every new home built in the last 30 years had been built/rebuilt in existing residential areas then there simply wouldn't be enough homes.

Just think about all the new developments all around the country. I recall looking at a property in 1991 (I almost bought it). At the time it was at the end of the biggest residential estate in Harrogate. Since then the estate has doubled again in size and the property is right in the middle. I would estimate some 600-1000 additional homes being built in that time. There is clearly a need and the Government recognises a need to keep building more new homes, hence the LDF.

So what would be your recommendation? Make all those families move to places like inner-city Liverpool and live in these redevelopments?

But, for fear of repeating myself, why ARE there green belt areas? Why is one field okay to build on, the next not, purely because someone in local Government said so? I accept why certain areas need protecting such as national parks or areas of special scientific interest. But to stop development in this seemingly random manner remains odd in my opinion. Surely penetration of residential property (ie, a % balance of land v build) and local needs should come above these arbitrary rules saying where and where not property can be built.

And another odd thing I have witnessed recently – my mother and father-in-law own a home on green belt and have a large piece of almost worthless land as they cannot build on it. But around 15 years ago the local Government built a bypass right through the middle of it. Why is building a house not permitted but building a road is? Then last year a local football club bought a piece of neighbouring green belt and was given permission to build a club house, car park, fenced pitches and (IIRC) are awaiting approval on floodlights. But because it is not a residential home it was approved.

Mastyles – once again you are talking rubbish. There is plenty of land to build new houses without using greenbelt land. Not all countryside is greeenbelt.

2 main issues – brownfield sites are more expensive to develop and people want greenfield. tough. Green belt is essential for the well being of our country in many ways. I am sorry you are so blinkerd you cannt see this

I will say this for the last time then go away…

I do not understand WHY there is green belt.

(Ohh, and I think you were talking utter unmitigated rubbish in my post about vulnerable people).

We have greenbelt so that we can maintain some areas of land that are not scattered with houses and industrial buildings, so that we can have areas of nice woods and fields between our built up areas, because without it anyone would build anywhere and it would look a **** mess, we'd lose natural resources because businesses found it cheaper and more profitable to build there than elsewhere where they may have to do a little cleaning up first. How do you propose it works instead?

Several people have tried to explain. its clear you don't understand. 'cos you don't understand does not mean there is not a reason.

Its pointless trying to explain something to someone who does not listen. same as your other thread.

clueless is the word

But, for fear of repeating myself, why ARE there green belt areas? Why is one field okay to build on, the next not, purely because someone in local Government said so?

Well if you're going to repeat yourself, so will I. Of course it's arbitrary. The whole point though is to protect some bits of unbuilt on land – obviously it doesn't really matter that much which particular bits they pick to protect, but they have to make a decision and then stick with it, otherwise nothing will be protected. Is it really so hard to understand that?

As to building roads, well quite clearly since it's a green belt then you're bound to get situations where you have to build a road through it. Totally different to a house – you can build a house anywhere, whilst a road isn't much use unless it goes a particular way. Meanwhile making football pitches is still maintaining open land – the club house is obviously an exception, but they can make those in some cases (not all building on green belt land is totally prohibited), and I imagine they took the pragmatic view that it's not exactly about to open the floodgates of lots of other football clubs building on the green belt.

I do not understand WHY there is green belt.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WOULD GET URBAN SPRAWL AS TOWNS SPREAD OUTWARDS, DESTROYING THE NICE BITS OF OPEN COUNTRY THAT YOU'D THINK A MOUNTAIN BIKER MIGHT QUITE APPRECIATE

Oh I get it now you have shouted.

I'm quite amused that m_f isn't a NIMBY but a BIMBY, or I suspect someone else's back yard.
Green belt legislation and it's history is clearly available if you choose to spend a little time looking, about 0.015 seconds.
Anyway was you've voted for Cameroon you won't have to worry as he's got some interesting intentions for the planning system including removing the requirement to receive permission for certain types of development.

Once greenbelt is gone, it's gone for good. Following your logic we would keep on destroying the coutryside and laying mile after mile of concrete. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of perfectly serviceable properties fall into disrepair.

My wife's folks live in leafy Ormskirk. Due to the expansion of the local college, Edge Hill, there is now a shortage of houses at a certain pricepoint. Why? Local landlords buy up terraced properties and lower priced semis for student accommodation thereby creating a housing shortage of sorts. There is an easy solution. Build halls of residence inside the college grounds for the students. Suddenly there are a load of houses for people who want homes rather than transients who will only be there in term time and more than likely leave when there education is complete.

If we didn't have green belt then it would work much more like in the good old US where they have huge places just abandond (sp?) like air base/ports and lots of other industrial sights hell there are even whole towns out there. I for one don't want to see this in our small country.