"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message

In fact 84% of people are against green belt reduction

From the BBC web site:


Living in the single most densely populated state in the US, New Jersey, I
have still managed to find a home in a rural area and for the first time in
my life, I am enjoying the stress free, noise free, pollution free
environment that so many people who are tired of the cities and suburbs
crave. The single-minded preservation of all undeveloped land as a
sacrosanct tract to be off limits forever to anyone looking for a home is to
condemn them to overcrowded cities where people live on top of each other
and crime is high. In the post-industrial world of the 21st century it is no
longer necessary for people to commute or even visit inner cities any
longer. A policy of rational development on a regional planning basis makes
far more sense and will take pressure off the cities and those who remain in
them.

Mark, USA



The Alps are beautiful and have houses dotted everywhere, so does France, so
does Italy, so does everywhere - what is this phobia some people have with
signs of habitation? What is this masochism that squeezes people into row
upon row of Europe's smallest, ugliest and most expensive houses? The green
belt doesn't need protecting, it needs opening up so that some of us can
breathe!

Douglas, Watford, UK



I'm afraid that there is a lot of hypocrisy about. Organisations like the
CPRE (whose survey this is) represent many people who live in a nice place,
like it and think that no-one else should live there. Those who need a new
house but can't afford one are bottom of their list of concerns. The green
belt should be a moveable boundary.

Rod Bull, Birmingham, UK



Why don't we turn the tide the other way? We could try and make the city
greener with more trees on avenues, window boxes, roof-top gardens and
creeping plants. I love living in London, but why everything has to be
concrete, glass or steel I don't know.

Graham Pilmoor, Watford



Most 'green belt' land is actually some form of managed land and as such not
some form of idyllic nature reserve. A more considered review of our land
and its use might be more appropriate, in conjunction with the scrapping of
farming subsidies, rather than focusing on one narrow issue.

Mark, Stonehouse, Glos



Well, now that most people buy food from abroad, there's no real need for
the land to be retained for agriculture. Why not build on it and create jobs
and new communities? Most people who live in towns and cities have
unrealistic images of 'the countryside' anyway its an industrial, man-made
landscape different in not so many ways from towns themselves.

Andrew, London



Why should a handful of people have a "lovely view" while the rest of us are
crammed in like sardines not able to see any further than the neighbours
that back on to us. Build outwards, reduce density of people and therefore
traffic. There'll be enough green land left after we've taken an extra mile
around the cities, but think of the extra quality of life of the millions
that'll be able to breathe and afford property again. Think of those that
can move closer to the cities due to extra, pleasant, housing and won't have
to drive a 120 mile round trip that they currently endure because of house
prices. It's a positive thing for us and the environment.

Paul, London



Do we want to protect it? As a person whose life is in London, but will, in
all likelihood, never be able to own a home here despite having a reasonable
job, I personally think the green belt could do with a great deal of
reduction. It's ridiculous that we all live cheek by jowl cramped into a
tiny section of this island - and then emerge into large green areas which
hardly seems under threat. Look at an aerial photograph of the UK - it's
green - not urban grey.

Daniel, London



People always talk about urban sprawl, but you don't have to look hard to
see that Britain is still a very green country.

Tom, Brentwood, Essex


etc,
etc,