„Tausende Häuser im Grüngürtel zu bauen fühlt sich an wie ein böser Traum“

Green Belt designation is an urban containment policy to stop urban sprawl. Eventually we will chip into the Green Belt. That in itself is sustainable development. In this case there will have had to be very special circumstances or criteria fulfilled to allow its release. I am fully confident that the Inspector in this case acted in the way that planning policy, and the Green Belt designation, intends.

It is an urban **containment** tool and not a designation to inciate a site’s environmental or ecological value.

My gut reaction is to dismiss them as NIMBYs, but that sort usually aren’t pointing at a specific different (also green belt) postcode and saying „put them there instead“. Maybe someone more informed can tell us if the richer areas were spared because of the people who live there, rather than (for example) because the richer areas are further away from the infrastructure necessary for expansion?

This sub never fails when stuff like this is posted. All the usual comments about ’nimbys‘ and green belt mean nothing but really what does this achieve?

No fields? No greens areas for wildlife let alone people? Even less food security?

People keep saying houses, to both buy and rent, are too expensive yet letting developers build as and where they want, all based on profits for them, won’t solve any of that.
Social housing built by councils and run by councils, with no right to buy are the way forward.

Much of the so-called „green belt“ isn’t ancient woodland: it’s often fields treated with harmful pesticides and artificial fertilizers, leaving it largely devoid of wildlife. Well-designed developments can actually increase biodiversity.

We either need to build on some of it or rethink policies that drive demand. Even decent and productive new migrants, over a million in recent year, naturally want to start families, which adds pressure to an already stretched housing market.

I get that neighbors don’t want fields replaced with housing, and development must be fair and policy-led. Too often, wealthy areas successfully lobby to avoid impact and developers manage to escape commitments to build new infrastructure. 

Near me they built on greenbelt land that was not just for nature but for water when it floods. Now they pushed the water elsewhere. And it floods some of a village and a a farmers field/ farm

Who cares anyways get these homes built asap!

The green belt prevents sprawl, it shouldn’t prevent development. Dense urban development should be allowed where public transport links are good – meaning wherever there is a train station, tram station or metro station, you should be able to build densely in a km radius. Build more stations at 1-2 km intervals if line capacity allows, and build around them as well.

Residents shouldn’t need cars, each station should also have its own shopping area, primary school, GP, pharmacy, pub, etc.

I think the sad thing that no one really thinks about is what we’re allowing the next generations to inherit for short term financial gain. The houses being built on the green belt are going to be appalling, just like the house being built in the rest of the country

Don’t destroy the countryside, it’s the best part of our country 

Ultimately the root of this problem was 20-30 years ago. We added ~11 million people to the population in that time and they have to live somewhere, and most people want a house rather than a flat. Unless we move to a society that can adapt to population decline then we’ll continously have to creep onto the green belt.

It’s unfortunate but we can’t do long term policies in this country, a government 20 years ago would have known that the levels of migration we allowed would force us to expand cities and towns, destroying greenery.

Of course it’s a bad idea, just like putting solar farms on green land is a bad idea, but this government doesn’t care if we can’t produce enough food.