GET IN TOUCH
Consultation
The Big Picture is about local people - from children to business people, from shoppers to parents. Everyone should have a say in The Big Picture.
The Big Picture Blog
Housing
1 September 2009
Author:Bex Bailey
Sharphill Woods, in Edwalton, has caused much controversy as an area of green-belt land and the proposed site for a new housing project. Developers want to build houses there, but many local residents are opposed to it.
Our growing population needs somewhere to live. The government has said that at least 14,000 more houses need to be built in Rushcliffe by the year 2026. The problem is that nobody likes houses being built near them. They have to be built somewhere, but the question is where?
Some 10,000 houses need to be built around the edges of Nottingham City, in places such as Clifton, West Bridgford and Gamston, though it is not certain exactly where. That leaves at least 4,000 to be built in Rushcliffe's towns and villages. Some other possible locations are the Cotgrave Colliery site and RAF Newton.
There is a good argument to be made for preserving our green spaces and avoiding building houses on them. Such spaces provide habitats for wildlife, aid us in the fight against global warming and are great places for children to play, exercise and get fresh air. They are even more important to those who don't have the benefits of a large garden - yet they are often convenient sites for houses.
I think that green spaces enhance our community, are something to be proud of, and should be protected. I do also understand the need for more housing. The solution could be in what we should prioritise. Is housing more important than green space? Should we work to strike a balance between green areas and grey houses? Or perhaps we should just leave green spaces alone altogether and focus on building on brown field sites.
I have seen houses being built in car park and garage areas in Rushcliffe. While this is a great thing to do in my opinion as it does not interfere with our grassy parks, we may struggle to find 16,000 garage areas in the borough!
Where do you want to see houses built? Is it right to build houses on our green spaces, including greenbelt land like Sharphill Woods? Do you think the government's target for the number of houses to be built in Rushcliffe is realistic? Share your views with Rushcliffe Borough Council and the people of Rushcliffe by adding them as comments on this blog.
You never know, you could change the future of Rushcliffe!
Responses to this Blog post
Josh Hogg says:
19.03.2010
The Green Belt must be protected. Building on it is not protecting it. Allowing developers like Barrett to exploit the governments misguided policy is not protecting it. This must not happen - No, No, No
David Rowe says:
03/09/09
Before looking at where on the green belt we should be building, I believe the main question is why is new accommodation required. The quick answer to this question is due to a growing population and the desire to grow the core cities. This I completely agree with and feel that if greater Nottingham area is to remain a core city in the UK it needs to expand it's workforce to attacked inward investment.
My concern is that the drive from the government to spread cities onto green belt land is having a detrimental effect on the centre of our cities. Nottingham City has numerous brown field development sites (waterside, eastside, island, Southside/station area), which are struggling to get off the ground. The reason for this is because developing these sites are more expensive than on the edge of town and there is a home buyer preference for homes in suburban locations.
By allowing green belt development, developers are going to move for the cheaper option and home buyers will opt for edge of town properties. The result is an urban sprawl, traffic congestion and derelict areas surrounding the city. Which returns me to my original question, why is the new accommodation required? Are we building on green belt due to developers and home buyers preference or due to a shortage of supply of accommodation?