| Topic: | 'The Greenbelt' | |
| Posted by: | Ken Munn | |
| Date/Time: | 02/11/15 18:32:00 |
| It's always described as 'The Greenbelt' as if it's a single entity. That's nonsense. There are loads of bits of greenbelt, and not all of it is of high amenity value. Some could be built on, and frankly, it would improve the wasteland that it represents at the moment. Other greenbelt areas we should fight tooth and nail to retain. Another factor with greenbelts is that they force development away from existing places of employment and education, meaning longer commutes for new residents, and necessitating new infrastructure to support new communities. By all means build on greenbelt land, but only on the grotty bits of it and even then only where infrastructure exists nearby to sustain the new development. |
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| Greenbelt | 02/11/15 18:01:00 | Claire Moran |
| Re:Greenbelt | 02/11/15 18:15:00 | Mark Perry |
| Re:Greenbelt | 02/11/15 18:16:00 | Andy Pease |
| 'The Greenbelt' | 02/11/15 18:32:00 | Ken Munn |
| Re:'The Greenbelt' | 02/11/15 18:41:00 | Richard Greenhough |
| Re:Re:'The Greenbelt' | 02/11/15 21:05:00 | Russell Pearson |
| Re:Re:Re:'The Greenbelt' | 03/11/15 10:29:00 | Vanessa Smith |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:'The Greenbelt' | 03/11/15 11:00:00 | Brian Coyle |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:'The Greenbelt' | 03/11/15 11:26:00 | Will Watson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:'The Greenbelt' | 03/11/15 12:56:00 | Russell Pearson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:'The Greenbelt' | 03/11/15 13:06:00 | Adam Beamish |
| Re:Greenbelt | 03/11/15 14:10:00 | Richard Greenhough |
| Re:Re:Greenbelt | 03/11/15 16:31:00 | Brian Coyle |