Badger
Member
Given our history etc, the UK is very protective of it's Greenbelt. That's understandable and a good stance to take in my opinion, but...
Companies are all too keen to build on greenbelt as opposed to brown.
What I'm wondering is why there are no policies of offsetting greenbelt with brownbelt. Say somebody wants to build on a field and get's permission (however questionable that permission is, just imagine they already have permission). In return why couldn't an equal sized area of *unused* brownbelt be converted to green? A field, a park, etc.
Take Raglan Street, Wolverhampton for example. It has been empty for more than ten years now, and before then it was derelict. The chances of it being built on are looking slimmer and slimmer (Tesco/Sainsbury's have somewhat of a war in Wolvo, if you don't know anything about that, hit up Express and Star and search for one of them. Anyway.)
See, everyone worries about cities expanding. But what if they were just naturally moving? If it makes more sense to build a building near to a motorway, and that's approved, couldn't unused brownbelt in an apparently inconvenient position be turned into greenbelt, hence just moving said city a tiny bit closer to the Motorway network? The city stays the same size - the amount of green to brown stays the same ratio - the city works better and has better connections but the greenbelt stays "protected" somewhat.
I'm not proposing offsetting as a complete solution because that could end up silly quite quickly, but in cases where permission is already given, couldn't/shouldn't the lost greenbelt be offset by finally getting rid of a say, twenty year derelict site, turning it into a field?
Companies are all too keen to build on greenbelt as opposed to brown.
What I'm wondering is why there are no policies of offsetting greenbelt with brownbelt. Say somebody wants to build on a field and get's permission (however questionable that permission is, just imagine they already have permission). In return why couldn't an equal sized area of *unused* brownbelt be converted to green? A field, a park, etc.
Take Raglan Street, Wolverhampton for example. It has been empty for more than ten years now, and before then it was derelict. The chances of it being built on are looking slimmer and slimmer (Tesco/Sainsbury's have somewhat of a war in Wolvo, if you don't know anything about that, hit up Express and Star and search for one of them. Anyway.)
See, everyone worries about cities expanding. But what if they were just naturally moving? If it makes more sense to build a building near to a motorway, and that's approved, couldn't unused brownbelt in an apparently inconvenient position be turned into greenbelt, hence just moving said city a tiny bit closer to the Motorway network? The city stays the same size - the amount of green to brown stays the same ratio - the city works better and has better connections but the greenbelt stays "protected" somewhat.
I'm not proposing offsetting as a complete solution because that could end up silly quite quickly, but in cases where permission is already given, couldn't/shouldn't the lost greenbelt be offset by finally getting rid of a say, twenty year derelict site, turning it into a field?
