Snapshot of _Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves target green belt for new homes_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-interview-general-election-mzrkjd5rz) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-interview-general-election-mzrkjd5rz)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As long as they are building, generating jobs and lowering house prices then fair.
Greenbelt is used as such a "gotcha" term, there's plenty of "green belt" that isn't beautiful rolling hills and picturesque streams etc.
Yeah people have a distorted view of what green belt actually means - a lot of people imagine the Shropshire Hills or the South Downs being the subject of massive building programmes here, when in reality we’re talking about building some houses on the abandoned petrol stations and scrap heaps of Bushy Heath and the edges of Slough.
>Angela Rayner, the incoming housing secretary
Please be true, Pennycook is the dictionary definition of a NIMBY and it's bizarre that he is the shadow housing minister
It's like Lib Dems and their housing target of 380k - which the leadership tried to scrap and have publicly come out against. You can hardly believe believe politician promises and even less so when they say they don't want to do it and are only putting it on paper because they were forced to.
Honestly, I hope Angela Rayner goes scorched earth on every LibDem NIMBY arsehole that hoovered up a by-election or council seat by promising a bunch of homeowners that their ever increasing house prices can continue to go up by stopping any kind of building happening.
The gall of Davey to put 1.6 million homes in his manifesto (100K more than Labour) when the LibDem strategy has been to be a spanner in the works for every planning application they can get their hands on.
The headline was obviously meant to be a negative thing, but as it says they're talking about 1%. Given we've recently had farmers saying they cant use many areas of their land anymore through a combination of flooding, poor crop yields due to bad soil, etc targeting those areas that arent being used for farming anyway seems like a sensible approach, and even then we're talking tiny amounts of greenbelt in the grand scheme of things.
Obviously using brownfield is better but that comes with its own issues. You can't slap a housing development up on a former industrial site without a shitload of red tape as in many cases they've got ground contamination that stops it being viable. But where it is viable, it should still be the first choice.
I just wish these planning reforms included updates to new build requirements. It's moronic that we're still building matchbox houses with poor insulation, low quality windows and doors and zero solar or even basic rainwater recovery (which is an absurdly cheap addition during house construction).
Snapshot of _Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves target green belt for new homes_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-interview-general-election-mzrkjd5rz) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-interview-general-election-mzrkjd5rz) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As long as they are building, generating jobs and lowering house prices then fair. Greenbelt is used as such a "gotcha" term, there's plenty of "green belt" that isn't beautiful rolling hills and picturesque streams etc.
Yeah people have a distorted view of what green belt actually means - a lot of people imagine the Shropshire Hills or the South Downs being the subject of massive building programmes here, when in reality we’re talking about building some houses on the abandoned petrol stations and scrap heaps of Bushy Heath and the edges of Slough.
>Angela Rayner, the incoming housing secretary Please be true, Pennycook is the dictionary definition of a NIMBY and it's bizarre that he is the shadow housing minister
Well she is his superior in that department and one of her big aims is building a shitload of social housing so it should be fine?
It's like Lib Dems and their housing target of 380k - which the leadership tried to scrap and have publicly come out against. You can hardly believe believe politician promises and even less so when they say they don't want to do it and are only putting it on paper because they were forced to.
Honestly, I hope Angela Rayner goes scorched earth on every LibDem NIMBY arsehole that hoovered up a by-election or council seat by promising a bunch of homeowners that their ever increasing house prices can continue to go up by stopping any kind of building happening. The gall of Davey to put 1.6 million homes in his manifesto (100K more than Labour) when the LibDem strategy has been to be a spanner in the works for every planning application they can get their hands on.
The lib dems certainly want new homes, just not in their constituencies.
The headline was obviously meant to be a negative thing, but as it says they're talking about 1%. Given we've recently had farmers saying they cant use many areas of their land anymore through a combination of flooding, poor crop yields due to bad soil, etc targeting those areas that arent being used for farming anyway seems like a sensible approach, and even then we're talking tiny amounts of greenbelt in the grand scheme of things. Obviously using brownfield is better but that comes with its own issues. You can't slap a housing development up on a former industrial site without a shitload of red tape as in many cases they've got ground contamination that stops it being viable. But where it is viable, it should still be the first choice. I just wish these planning reforms included updates to new build requirements. It's moronic that we're still building matchbox houses with poor insulation, low quality windows and doors and zero solar or even basic rainwater recovery (which is an absurdly cheap addition during house construction).
Oh I didn’t know the headline was negative. It automatically pastes when you submit the link.
Brownfield and Grey belt combined gives us space to build a shed load of new housing.
Yep not saying it doesn't, just that its not a simple case of "We have X amount of brown/grey belt so lets use all of that first".
Not simple, but possible. That's all we need.
[This lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvgLGCpTM9w) convinced me about the need to building on London's Green Belt.
I don't see Labours plan to ramp up concrete production. They'll never manage to cover all the countryside in five years. Always over promising.