I am pleased to see such a high level of support for the National Trust. The few naive, short-sighted comments deriding the Trust as middle-class, home-owning Nimbys are saddening - the Trust's staff and volunteers work incredibly hard to look after historic buildings and beautiful countryside for the benefit of the nation.

Yes this country may need more homes, but why do you think the endless, soul-destroying blocks of flats built in urban areas are empty? Because they lack the very green spaces the Trust is trying to protect, and therefore no-one wants to live in them! It's about the quality of development as well as it's location.

Kate, Leamington Spa,

What I find objectionable is that it is always the comfortable middle-aged middle classes that object so loudly to other hard working people being able to afford their own homes and families. Perhaps they would like to move up north, live in cramped shared accommodation, or sacrifice their own affluent desires for a change, instead of volunteering others (usually the younger generations)?

The problem in the UK is not development or immigration, it is greater life expectancy, higher divorce rates, second homes, more people living alone, and the "I'm all right mate, I've got my own place, no-one else matters" contingent.

Labour is not proposing to build on every last shred of green land, but some expansion is necessary. The Planning system is perfectly capable of delivering this, and is best positioned to make independent decisions, without the interference of a private organisation.

I am a life member of the NT, but for the first time, I wish I wasn't. They have gone too far.

Catherine, Bournemouth,

I notice that those who oppose the Trust have posted several times, as though this gives their countryside-hating minority view more substance.

Much of Britain is already so ugly it makes your heart sink, and Gordon Brown wants it all that way. I shall be joining the National Trust today and I urge others to do so too.

Steve, grimsby,

Once again an unlected unaccountable but powerful organisation seeks to deny homes for the many thousands of people who need a decent place to live. Also and all too predictably the debate brings out the closet racists. The demand for housing and the dreadful policies that have led, at least in part, to the current crisis were in place long before the recent increase in net migration. Scapegoating Poles or whoever does not bear scrutiny.

Yes lets make the best use of urban land and prioritise the regeneration of our towns and cities. Lets have decent quality design in our city centres, inner areas and suburbs. That is an important part of making them places where people want to live and work.

But we cannot accommodate all need within our towns and cities. Development in the countryside is needed.

This initiative by the powerful NT is an abuse of its charitable status - shame on this abuse of privelege.

Ray, Taunt,

I will now be joining the National Trust. Strength in unity.

Brian, Watford,

Brits at their best is all in favour of the National Trust attempting to block new development and preserving the green belts. But people have to live somewhere if they are in our country. It would be far better to have effective control of our borders. Many countries have these controls. For instance, Mexico and China allow people to leave, but are very strict about who can enter. If we could apply ourselves to our borders, a simple matter of political will, we could continue to enjoy and share our glorious countryside and save it for our children and grandchildren and the many people in the world who want to visit.

David Abbott, Shawford, United Kingdom

As a National Trust Member I think Sir William Proby should direct his energies (and Trust campaigns) towards protecting the green belts through the planning system itself - making sure there is no encroachment on all our approved greenbelt areas. It is obviously true that the best form of control is ownership. But the Trust's income of £350 million will not be enough if the greenbelts are threatened and if Ministers were to relax control. It is the same story where the National Trust's Giant's Causeway World Heritage Site is now threatened by development. The Trust should first insist on their being an approved statutory development plan for that area instead of developers (and the Trust) wasting money on unsatisfactory projects and untidy carparks on otherwise unspoilt green headlands! In other words we should all concentrate of making the planning system do what it is meant to do: protect the environment!

Des McConaghy, Liverpool, United Kingdom

This UK Government (G. Brown and T. Blair) talk about Global Warming and Climate Change and blaming China and the rest of the world - (this is Climate Change in the UK).
Labour is stealing your breathing space (Green Space). We all need space to live and breath - is Labour cutting life span. (Human Rights) and H&S.
Two years to Ten years is not along time and labour wants to build more houses, Flats, Airports and more.
While you are playing with Fireworks and with Face book - there is no going back after Two or Ten years and a Second Life for you and the lost of wildlife and that Greenfield or SPACE which was there and no longer is. which is not put under the heading Brown Fields under Labour, so they can get a round planning and a concrete UK.

John Bright, Boston,Lincolnshire, Lincs

The National Trust is to be congratulated on its stand against this government which seems determined to wreck our priceless heritage of incomparably beautiful countryside.. It is largely because of its complete inability or unwillingness to run the country in a sensible and mature fashion that the housing problem has arisen in the first place. I am a member of the National Trust, and very happy to be so. It needs our support on this issue.

Nicholas Lee, Windsor,, UK

I agree with what the National Trust is doing and , as a non-member, would consider becoming one to show my support.
Who is this housing being provided for? Hopefully , not to people who just want a second/third home.
Furthermore, shouldn't we be encouraging the industry to go where it is needed in the country - to avoid the congestion around the South East?

K.Domnick, Torbay, GB

Power to the trust, Labour has destroyed so much of the British way of life in the last ten years.. Labour have run slip shod over peoples feelings and has to be stopped the National Trust speaks for the vast majority of us.

D Case, Newquay,

I'm all for it because I want to live somewhere nice with my 20 buy to lets and Volvo with The National Trust Sticker in the back...

Austin Tassletine, Bristol, UK

Good, good, good! Thank heavens that finally an established and respected society is going to stand up for our countryside. I will be joining today.
Lack of wild space is exactly the reason we as a young family contemplate leaving this country. There just isn't room for even more houses. Villages are joining towns and everywhere is becoming one big suburb.
I know it is hard starting out, we live in a rare shared ownership home or we could not have afforded to buy for some years yet, as my husband is a medical student.
There is another issue with new housing which is not being addressed-gardens. In the desire to squash as many houses as possible into the space, gardens are no longer big enough to break into a run, let alone play hide and seek or football. These are supposed to be family homes, and children need safe outdoor spaces or they will all be couch potatoes.
When it comes down to it, there just isn't enough space, we need to face up to it!

AC, Cannington, uk

After reading this article I am going to donate to the National Trust!

Kate Caplin, Caversham, Berks

About time someone did something, we need more green!

Farrukh, Woking, UK

Firstly the government should identify empty houses. I heard there are at least 600,000. People should be discouraged against having second homes or holiday homes unless it is being occupied for most of the year. If there is a need to create 3 million houses for the population then something has to give. Drive on the motorway between any city and there is vast swathes of countryside to build on.
Houses in the US are twice as big, half the price and probably better built - and they are going through a housing crash!

Paul, Harrow, England

The National Trust is not saying that it is 'against' the Government's house building programme of 3 million new homes. It is opposing, though, the building on Green Belt land. And I applaud that stance. Of course we need more affordable homes, but we also need an environment that we can enjoy and treasure. We need more 'green lungs' in our towns and cities, and we need to conserve the character of our countryside. Isn't that what the National Trust wants to do? Although some hysterical headlines scream that Sir William Proby is opposing the housing programme, a more mature reading of his statements make it clear that he wants the NT to ensure that we are able to live in 'green', pleasant surroundings. What's wrong with that?

Terry Bedding, Bath,

Can any reasonable person truly believe that maintaining "The countryside" as an isolated distant entity is of higher priority than delivering housing to homeless people, or those with no choice but to live in depressing hovels starved of the very green environment that would truly improve their quality of life?
The percentage of visitor-hours (no. of visitors x visit duration) spent in the countryside is tiny - I won't re-research the exact figure, it's not necessary. Yet 100% of people need housing.
The best way to improve quality of life for the most people is with balanced integrated green area/housing, for enjoyment every day, by more people.
Environmentally, this is far more effective at negating the environmental impact of human habitation than segregated green areas.
Had housing development in green areas been barred in the past, we would have none of the British villages that are the envy of the world. Let's have the chance to live in green areas not just visit them.

Roy Pemberton, Bournemouth,

Freely elected government maybe, I don't remember
voting for Brown, does anyone else?
I'm one hundred percent behind the National Trust
in fact I've just renewed my membership.
I agree with most people when they say we should put a stop to economic migrants.Incidentally could
somebody explain why people can come over here and claim all of the benefits that most of us have to pay for? If Brown thinks all these migrants are so good I think he should send them up to his own country.

Hobbit, Battle, East Sussex

Chris from Woodbridge has his facts wrong. For this housing equation it is the net long-term migration that counts, and in the most recently published figures (as opposed to estimates), which are to June 2006, 385,000 people left the UK for the long term, whilst 574,000 people entered the UK for the long term, a net long term immigration of less than 200,000 per annum. And the trend for long term emmigration is upward.
At this rate, it would take far more than the 10 years under discussion here to create the need for 3 million additional homes - especially given that few of these will be for single occupants.
If you want to see more on this, just search on Google for "number of UK emigrants".

Roy Pemberton, Bournemouth,

Bravo! Sir William. At last - someone with power and soul. Stop the desecrators who are proposing building on our incomparable countryside, at the government's behest, houses for a massively increased population due to immigration, which we do not want or need. What can I do to help? S.O.C. (Save our countryside)it to them!

Judith Chisholm, London,

In Nottingham there are many hundreds of apartments that have been built by speculators. A huge percentage of them is unoccupied. Why do we even need to consider building on green belt?

A. Taylor, Nottingham, UK

I want to protect the green belt but the population is rising at an unprecendent level mainly because of mass immigration and the new arrivals have got to have somewhere to live. If we don't build in new areas that means even more overcrowding in our already overcrowded cities and suburbs. Perhaps our politicians should have thought this one through properly!Unfortunately this is another fine mess New Labour have gotten us into.

Owd Grandad Piggot, Stoke On Trent, UK

Join the National Trust if you are not already a member to express your natural distrust of a government concreting the country in order to house more supporters and voters from abroad (most immigrants from non-EU countries vote Labour). The secondary goal is to expunge the anti-urban vote entirely - none of which goes to Labour. I can't work out whether this Government reminds me more of cancer or plague.

Paul Hodson, Tetbury, England

I love trees and wild spaces. I grew up in a town with almost none, even in the wealthy county of cheshire...

Progress, the future, for me and many others is living in a more harmonious way with nature.

And its not just me who thinks that way. I know its coming..., new age, neo-baroque, call it what you will, i will be so pleased to see the end of modernist, postmodernist, out of date thinking creating monstorous spaces in which for us to live.

Maybe thats bad grammar there at the end, i was trying to sound important :oP

antifatalist, caen, france

Rubbish!

I would love to buy a house but there's no way I can afford one. We have to build more houses. It should be done in a responsible way, but it has to happen somewhere.

John Power, London,

And what is the likelihood of Sir William Proby and the majority of National Trust members being of a certain age, who bought their houses at a time when it was cheaper and have been living so comfortably for the past decades that they can decide to choose to prevent housing for any first time buyer?

They say they are not against development but anytime there is talk of new housing, some old stalwarts like the National Trust will be ready to block the idea on grounds of beauty.

The recent report on TV called the Truth About Property got to the heart of the matter.Any type of development seems to be taboo to certain sectors of the public, whether it's redeveloping disused brownfield sites, building high-rise flats, etc. What makes the National Trust so vile is that it plans to intervene in planning inquiries that it has no direct involvement with; why stop there, perhaps they should also intervene in local housing matters when someone wants to build a new conservatory?

Harry, London,

Its amazed me how everyone has been so terribly nice about
housing, in any other country this would have created a civil
distrubance.

The stake holder society has become the no stake holder
society and the politicians have let us all down here. The
big profit buytolet has passed its time to get back to reality
before the the whole thing collapses.

Less immigration and more new towns.

M walker, bromsgrove, worcs

Why are people so fixated with immigration? If Spain adopted the same attitude and chucked out all the Brits who have retired there, buying properties and pushing up house prices so that they are unaffordable to young Spaniards, we would have a far greater influx of people back into the UK, retired and acting as a drain on the state.

Social trends, such as divorce and increasing life expectancy, a reluctance to build high density properties and resistance to building on even disused, brown field sites, the fact the one in thirty properties in the UK lies empty, all contribute to the dire lack of housing in the UK.

Sir William Proby, comfortable residing in his country estate seems to be the epitome of the privileged property owner who want to prevent first time buyers from ever being able to afford a property of their own.

If we can't come up with any other alternatives, then we must build on green field sites. Perhaps we should prevent people from owning more than one property?

Ben , Oxford,

To all you who don't want houses built on green belt land, a simple question - what was your own home built on? Or did it appear by magic when the world was created? I don't want all this land that I'm not allowed to walk on preserved so that my grandchildren won't be allowed to walk on it either! Build houses exactly the way they have always been - on an open piece of ground.

Ken Whysall, Hemel Hempstead,

Developers destroy the countryside by building horrid little pastiche houses in an attempt to emulate some kind of rural idyll. Ironic really.

Jonathan, Auckland, New Zealand

I think it is vile that the National Trust would "intervene in planning inquiries and challenge new developments, even if it has no direct involvement with the land under threat". Why stop there, perhaps the NT would like to intervene in local council decisions in applications to build or develop a conservatories, garden sheds, etc just because it might ruin the beauty of the neighbourhood? Agree with Anthony of London, if they wish to become a political organisation, their charitable status should be revoked.

Harry, London,

Well said, Trevor, Bury St. Edmonds, and Anthony, London.
Also, I can tell you, as a recently retired construction project manager, with international experience, that brownfield development is highly problematic, not only in economic terms (though certainly there are massive problems in that area, and we shouldn't forget that developers won't develop unless they're going to make a profit - why should they? - so this will mean yet more exhorbitantly priced accomodation that won't therefore solve the root problem), but also in terms of the hazards that have to be tackled. These at the least create significant risk that requires enormous mitigation measures, and which delay the development process - the opposite of what is needed. At worst, the mitigation measures don't work and either the hazard becomes "live" or the projects simply fail to achieve their goal, and never become suitable for building. They will never be a sufficient answer to this problem.

Roy Pemberton, Bournemouth,

Well done Sir William. Tell the Government to sort out the disgrace of empty properties, make the owners pay double Council Tax - they wouldn't be empty for long!

Alan Davis, Devon,

It is finally good to see a such a well represented, well funded and respected organisation as the national trust taking a stance against a government and a construction industry that seems intent and focused on paving over our green land.

As the population expands there will be more and more pressure for new houses - it won't stop - populations continually grow so it is easy to see a time wen our future generations only know what a tree looks like because they saw it in an almanac or a photo. There are ways such as the japanese 'green' mega cities that allow expansion without destroying the green spaces - it's time for a step change in thinking, time to think about the environment to urban balance - unfortunatley most people only see economics and profit lines...

John Freedland, London,

the time has come to cease expansionism and accept this age of conservation, despite the economic implications. Our climate and culture is attractive: but we have to look to our island and spread this elsewhere or else there'll just be no end to it.

Ade, Reading,

The UK is the second most densely populated country in Europe after the Netherlands. Large parts of our country are unsuited t odevelopment (Lake District, Dales, Scottish Highlands etc.) and employment opportunities and hence population are biased to the south-east.
Were figures available, the counties of the South-East, from Hertfordshire to Kent, Essex to Surrey and Hampshire, would easily be the most densely populated area in Europe.

And yet we still let more into the country, doing little to discourage expansion in the south-east.

As Chairman of a Parish Council, surrounded by National Trust land (including Ashridge mentioned above), I applaud the NT's stance - it's time for common sense to prevail and say we cannot have an open-house that encourages the ruination of our country and over stretches all our infrastructure - schools, hospitals etc.

Population reduction globally is the only way ahead, starting here would set a good example. Develop sensitively, carefully.

Richard Painter, Aldbury, Herts.

People need to know that the National Trust have in the past sold land to property developers. Land is no safer in there hands than that of any other land owner.

Anthony, Nottinghamshire, UK

Intrigued to read the numbers of comments advocating "shutting the door" on migrants to the UK. Let's not forget that Britain, a small island with scant natural resources, has prospered for centuries from the resources of other nations, once from colonisation and war, now advantageous trade agreements and protectionism. When the citizens of other nations have the chance to improve their lot in the UK, that's not considered acceptable? Stop blaming others and start addressing the root of the problem. This island has a high population density, it requires high-density housing.

Mark Hamilton, Hamilton,

Nooooo - we are not worried to be called Nimby's !!..... people who know and love the place they live are LAMBY's (Looking After My Back Yard). All Lamby's know they will leave the world to the young that follow, and will attempt to leave them the BEST Britain they can ... by challenging institutional vandalism and money-motivated planning and getting a better deal for everyone! The National Trust support for Britain is wise and welcomed.

Lesley, East Anglia,

It's so easy for the majority of middle-aged National Trust members who bought their homes at a time when it was so much cheaper to be complacent and not spare a thought about the practicality of building homes for first-time buyers. As for Sir William Proby, do Times readers know that he lives in a historic house, the type of which you go to visit for its heritage and beauty? No doubt it's hard for Sir Proby then to understand the shoeboxes that first-time buyers have to contend with to rent or buy. I will never visit another National Trust property again!

Harry, London, UK

Good for them - as stated - once green land has gone it has gone for ever. We do need to retain our green belt land.

eliza, England, England

I'm glad someone is tackling the government over this ruination of our country, it's about time.
The green belt is there for a reason and all this house building will mean disaster.

Samantha Jones, Bucks, England

This is not the purpose or role of the National Trust - having been a member for many years this really positions its leadership as a bunch of out of touch rural conservatives. Yes we have to perserve the historic buildings and land of UK but buying up random land to stop development is not the role of the Trust - this is an issue for local communities. Having experienced it myself where I had to leave a village that I would have been happy to stay but could not find suitable housing this is more important in much of the UK to avoid having communities that are strangled by the loss of young people - just look at many of the National Parks where local people who are paid pathetically low wages when set against local house prices have no choice but to leave.

Mark, Wellington, New Zealand

There are three reasons for the catastrophic "flatten everything and build overprice shoeboxes" school of thought.
1: pensions are such a fraud now no one with two brain cells to rub together is bothering with them and are investing in buy to let instead.
2. Massive immigration IS bumping up the population massively. The birthrate of people born here is well below replacement and while far more people are choosing to live alone it is the immigration situation that is causing serious overcrowding.
3. Greed. Every policy in recent years has invested massively in speculative building. Look at the policy to flatten large amounts of good period houses in northern cities to build tacky over priced shoeboxes. Look at the land grab going on over the Olympics. They aren't taxing us to death to provide training and facilities for talented kids to get to the Olympics, they are using our money to force people out of their homes and businesses, forcibly buy up the land and build on it for profit.

Thalia, London,

To Alice Adams - post two.

Please address your anger to the government not the National Trust. It is the government's daft immigration policy which has led to this over-populated land.

Geoff, Bedford, England

Dan Oxford is the man.
Plelase pay attention to his comments everybody.

Geoff, Bedford, England

For the benefit of Gareth Young, let me just repeat an earlier contribution (Howard West), that urban land only accounts for 13% of the country. Projections of a land that's totally concreted over is therefore fit only for a place in poorly written pulp fiction.

It's precisely this type of over-reactive, inaccurate and emotive mush that is the source of this whole debate - that and a massive helping of "I'm all right Jack, never mind the rest of you" (otherwise known as NIMBY).

As to the massively exaggerated issue of migration. Let's put the record straight on that one. The latest accurate figures for net long term migration (actual recorded, not the forecasts) were for the year to June 2006, and showed 350,000 long term emigrants (and the figure is rising), as compared to 574,000 long term immigrants, a net immigration of a little over 200,000. Even with average occupancy as low as two, this will not even begin to approach the 3 million level in ten years.

Roy Pemberton, Bournemouth,

At some point we need to address our increasing population as quite simply, our country cannot support many more. I'll be joining the National Trust later today thanks to this article.

Dominic Masters, Caernarfon, Wales

we cannot have mass immigration and preserve england as it was in the twentieth century.
more people means more homes.
the trust should help to find sites not veto every idea, they should represent all people equally not just the ones who will leave them money
they are no better then the developers they just want to keep the cream for themselves.
we need realaistic disscussion on brown field sites and more responsibility on devlopers and planners to create a complete infrastructure.
but if housing is to be affordable to the younger generation then we have to build a lot of new houses and some must be on the edge of green belt land.

jim, staffs, england

I am a national trust member but I am also a FTB struggling to find a house as affordability is the worst it has ever been. We need more houses period! For this reason I won't be supporting the national trust in the future.

As far as I can see, this is just another example of the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude.

Chris, Northampton,

Quite a justified stance, too. Could this be the encouragement that Gordon Brown needs to make him think about the implications of his decisions prior to actually making them? I fear not.

Matthew Jones, Newcastle-under-Lyme, United Kingdom

We all want to protect the countryside, but not at any cost to the huge number of people who are desperately in need of homes.

Sir William Proby needs to tell the young people of this country, who are struggling to find adequate accommodation, where exactly he expects them to live. Presumably he is happy to condemn them to live in ever higher density housing in cities.

But then, as the lifelong beneficiary of inherited wealth and privilege, Sir William Proby wouldn't need to worry about such matters, would he?

Alice Adams, London,

Thank you National Trust, I will join today.

About time someone stood up to these politicians who won't stop 'growing the economy' until every inch of England is concreted over.

Gareth Young, Brighton, England

The numbers of migrating people in the U.K. has caused the necessity for more homes. We need sensible controls on migration.
Whilst our government is now considering the building strategies that will create urban sprawl and lack of countryside for developmental housing. These new migrants’ may only take partial root. Thus perhaps wishing to return to their own green and pleasant countries when their own political policies improve e.g. when migrant governments’ allow their own citizens’ to make more money or at least wages of a similar amount to what they are earning here. (E.g. Poland already now seeks to get back skilled workers by paying more money.) Migrants could eventually be influenced to return home. By which time within the bigger picture, our irreversibly over built county side may not be as pleasant as the migrants’ homelands. There is now distinct overcrowding within Brownfield sites, e.g. overlooking blocks within close proximity in every available location in the UK.

susan, West Sussex, England

The trust is siding with the smug middle-aged nimbies, against the disenfranchised young, who desperately need houses so they can enjoy the same comforts in life as their elders.
Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

Not at all- I'm a key worker priced out of the housing market and TOTALLY oppose the building of more housing on greenbelt land. This crisis is due to a speculative and irresponsible buy to let market pushing prices sky high, a benefits system that encourages the least suited to have the most children, and an open door immigration policy. Here in Oxford there's been a huge increase in economic migrants living several to a family house, making more profits for landlords. Get people back to work, make them pay for their own kids and limit immigration.

Dan Oxford, Oxford, England

According to the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) the UK population is predicted to grow by 11million people between 2006 and 2031. What alternative to releasing more land for building does the National Trust propose in order to house all these extra people ?.
Anthony, London, UK.
Limit immigration, stop paying those who cannot afford to have children to as many as they like and then house them. Simple.

Dan Oxford, Oxford, England

I live in a country with plenty of empty space but also seemingly uncontrolled expansion of our cities. The ugly, uncontrolled building spreads up hills and across the landscape overburdening what little infrastructure there is.

What I appreciated most about England and Wales during a visit in the summer was all the greenery that was accessible, and, the health service (which I pay tax for). It is such a shame to see both under threat. The fields I played in as a kid are gone, the orchards are now hotels in a 'corridor', and my village is just part of a city.

We have no parks here and up to the ever-moving edges of the civil constructions there is no open land. OK, so it's an empty country, but England isn't, it has limited resources.

If you want to see the result of endless development, go to the US and see the urban sprawl around big cities. The Brinkman Ranch seen in the programme Dallas is now surrounded by bland housing.
Welcome to hell.

Paul, Cusco, Peru

As a Trust member I completely support the Trusts actions in calling time on unrestricted development. If the developers are allowed their way, nothing will be left for future generations to enjoy.
This Labour Government must really hate Britain!!!

Chris Kenney, High Wycombe, Bucks

Well done Sir William and the National Trust.

This country is already suffering from a loss of identity, so as with everything else this government desicrates the land with another quick fix.

For the sake of future generations, leave it alone!

Paul Moxon, Birmingham,

Well I hope they will stick to this statement by withdrawing their plans to build 223 homes on part of the Erddig Estate Near wrexham where we are campaigning to stop them building on one of the last green field areas here. The Trust are contradicting themselves and making themselves look like idiots by releasing this statement. How can they possibly respond to this now by saying they want to stop the countryside being spoilt by housing development and yet they are the ones who have had the plans drawn up to put up a new village in Rhostyllen which people don t want and they know it or are they hoping it might be forgotten and won t be brought up. I am eagarly waiting to see how they will worm their way out of that one or what rubbish they will come out with.
Please visit Rhostyllen.com and see what we re up against.

TARA GREEN, WREXHAM, CLWYD

Well that's going to save me around £100 per year, I wont be renewing. Only 13% of the country is urban, almost all of the green belt is not accessable to the general population, and you can bet that city parks are by far the most popular green spaces in the land. It's clear this country needs more housing, and that brown field development has been woefully inadequate in providing this. Years of monsterous house price inflation is destroying social mobility. Maybe this is exactly what those who are in charge at the Trust are after? It's a shame really, because I like visiting forests and stately homes.

Howard West, Lechlade, Glos

Yes, why aren't all the new developments in Scotland. After all it was they who presided over uncontrolled immigration for 10 years. Let them have lots of monstrous high rise apartment blocks.

Ron, Bedford, U.K.

As a council tenant, it is obvious to me that there are too many people and not enough houses to cope with them. However, I am inclined to agree with Maggie Millington. This governments open door policy on immigration is the cause of the problem. Why should we pave over our beautiful land to house those who have not contributed. It has already been stated that the 3 million homes that Gordon Brown wants to build will not be enough. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of people flooding into our country every year. I doubt that the housing will go to those that actually need or deserve it.
I believe it is time to stand up and be counted, shut the doors Mr Brown. Allow our country to recover itself or this green and pleasant land will become a dark and harsh, concrete landscape. We need our identity back all this government is doing is eroding it.

Kelly, London, UK

National Trust anti greenfield development? Why are they developing a greenfield site, against the wishes of locals in Rhostyllen, Wrexham? Proposed increase in population by 40% will destroy the character of this typical ex-mining village and affect the wildlife just returning to a stream which will be diverted to provide a cosmetic feature for the Merseyside and Manchester commuters who will be the only people able to afford these houses. Local children's education will be affected, yet again, to cater for increased need of classroom space. "Urban Village" will bring no benefit to local shopkeepers, it's having it's own shopping mall.
National Trust claims finance needed to maintain Erddig! Wrong! N/T's own figures show Erddig self-supporting last 13 yrs., net contributor to N/T's massive reserves (£900 million invested. National Trust Annual Report and Financoal Statements 2006/07) for 10 of those years.
Trust has sites of its own it wants to develop.Hidden agenda??? Hypocrites!!!

W.Regan, Wrexham, North Wales

I'm all for the Trust getting involved now before it's too late! This massive building programme wont stop, it'll only increase each year and is the start of the slow decline of England as a green and pleasant land. If nothings done then soon we'll be the first country that's completely urban!

jackboy, london,

Whenever a group or individual opposes a proposal for development, they are labelled as "Nimbys", as if this in itself constituted an argument of merit. All of us are Nimbys - it's merely a matter of degree. Most would object to a rendering plant being built at their back fence; does that make them Nimbys, in the worst sense of the word? The National Trust is at least a strong voice, representing a wide variety of people - not all, by any means, well off. Doubtless there are many shades of opinion and motive behind this attack, but if we have learned one thing from 10 years of Labour (for whom I have vowed to never vote again), it is that extreme opposition is required in order to have any hope of a reasonable outcome.

John, London,

WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT ALLOW 2ND HOMES AND
THOUSANDS OF EMPTY HOUSES IN CITIES TO DECAY when
they could be used to help young people to use them to live
in, radical thinking is needed now free up the empty houses
at a discount price, young people want houses now not in twenty years time.

george william taylor, hull, uk

Time to join the National Trust, it seems. And it is doing the work for the nation that government should be doing. It has nothing to do with depriving the young of living accommodation, but is protecting the nation and its quality of life for generations to come.

There are plenty of spaces on brownfield sites in towns and cities where our former industries used to exist,. Let's build on those first, convert office buidings, use quality high rise developments, even build above shops and offices.

The quickest way to destroy the environment and create more pollution is by destroying the country's lungs - the Green Belt.

Rex AC, Birmingham, West Midlands

Well said Sir William! I live near the Ashridge Estate (NT owned) in Hertfordshire. Every day I walk my dog there and every day I wonder if this wonderfual acreage will still be in existence and unspoilt in 10 or 20 years time. It won't be if the government has its way and unless the NT stands up and is counted ! What are we doing to our landscape? We seem to prefer the Prescott approcah... demolishing perfectly good buildings for modern jerry built structures .. or the easy option ... i.e building on green field sites... to an integrated sensible approach which would refurbish what we already have, and encourage city / town dwelling.

Margaret Morgan, Berkhamsted,

I see no reason why my countryside should be compromised in any way because of a housing shortage for immigrants. It would be far more sensible to address the problem - drastically reduce immigration, principally by ceasing the benefits structure that attracts them.
This would make TWO savings. It would save the countryside and save on the benefits that the indigenous population have to provide by whatever devious means this Government can conceive.

John, Worksop, UK.

Immigration immigration immigration = a war of the government against the people and their environment aimed to force through catastrophic damage regardless of the wish of the communities affected. In such a war every device must be used to block the government including infiltration sabotage votes protest civil disovbedience and legal challenge.

Note Prescott defined "brown field land" to include back gardens in green areas = grotesque high destinity flats and chicken coops destroying the environment and causing traffic seize up.

Peter, Reading,

Sustainable development means living within environmental limits. If we can't house the immigrants without building on our countryside (our future food supply, incidentally), then they can't come in. And while we're about it, let's help our young people by reserving some housing for locals only, as they do in the Channel Islands. We should also ban second homes (including the holiday homes owned by the National Trust!)There are solutions to all these problems if we think creatively and act decisively and don't allow the 'greed is good' mentality to go on poisoning our political life.

David Robins, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, Wessex

The National Trust is to be commended for wanting to preserve Green Belt (Green Belt - NOT simply land in the countryside, two terms which those totally ignorant of the planning system use to mean the same thing.)

Now perhaps it would like to be somewhat more constructive instead of simply dog-in-the-manger and tell us exactly where we are supposed to build the houses that residents of this country need to live in - including all of these hundreds of thousands of new immigrants let in by Blair & Brown.

But no doubt National Trust members have already secured their homes ?
A clear case of "Pull up the ladder, Jack - I'm all right !" ? ? ?

Trevor, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

It should be horses for courses. In Scotland we have a lot of land but green belt policies only protect the land banks of the builders.
Why should people have to pay such inflated prices for a spot of land to build their home on.
Government should force the councils free up more land for houses instead of them toadying to their builder palls.

Robbie Holst, Kinneff/Montrose, Angus

Ever since the mid 1950's when Green Belt policies were first introduced - for the purpose (note) of ensuring that much-needed housing was provided in the right places ! - national policy has been to preserve open countryside "for its own sake" and "for the sake of future generations".

The time has now come to ask exactly WHO we are preserving this countryside for, since 90% of it is privately owned and will never be accessible to those who are, as a result of this longstanding inane policy, forced into cramped urban living conditions which will form the new industrial revolution "back-to-backs" or the 1960's tower block slums of the future.

Every survey ever undertaken shows that the vast majority of people want a convention house or bungalow with its own private garden/amenity space, NOT a flat or apartment in an urban concrete jungle where the only relief is communal amenity areas.

THIS is what the National Trust will prevent them from having.

Trevor, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

When I travel around the UK, I see acres and acres of vacant lots and brownfield that sits undeveloped. I also see abandoned houses and factories that could be rehabbed. The potential of this wasted space is mindboggling. One must wonder who owns all of that land and why it sits there unutilized when it could make money for the owners and provide housing. At the opposite end of my terrace, for instance, is an abandoned terrace that is left to squatters and druggies and it's taking years for the council to wrest it from the (drug dealer, in jail) owner. If the National Trust could buy up brownfield from absentee owners or lobby for laws to make it easier for abandoned properties to be reutilized, it would be very helpful to solve the entire housing problem without endangering greenfield.

alice, salado, TX/US

You guys are missing the point. You don't need green belt land, all you have to do is to start demolishing all this old, out of date and rotten houses. You will see how much space you will find.

Fabio C, London, UK

I have always thought calling people NIMBY's cruel. Of course people don't want it "in their back yard", who would? People are right to stand up to the destruction of their environment and the negative effects it brings. Why tar them with the NIMBY brush for being responsible citizens defending their property value and life quality?

Well done to the National Trust, I for one will be joining this fine organisation.

David, Ashford,

here's a thought:


confiscaate supermarket land banks for housing

peter codner, devizes, england

I agree with Dot from Oxford - Congratulations Sir William!

Janet, Essex, UK

Congratulations Sir William. At last someone is talking sense and action. We need houses but we also need green space. I will double my National Trust membership fee if you act to stop the government's current insanity. Hurrah for the National Trust!

Dot Bonding, Oxford,

This is an abuse of the Trust's standing for a political purpose that will appeal to some members, but not to all. The trust is siding with the smug middle-aged nimbies, against the disenfranchised young, who desperately need houses so they can enjoy the same comforts in life as their elders.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

Looks like it's time for me to rejoin the National Trust.

The Government needs to encourage business and industry to move to areas away from the over-populated south east - not concrete over what remains of the open spaces in already heavily populated areas.

They also need to severely restrict the movement of people into this country. We cannot house huge populations from Eastern Europe or the wider world. Nearly every Big Issue seller in the area where I live is obviously an immigrant ..... the 'big issue' is not about providing these people with homes.... it is about preventing migrants from coming here unless they have a job and can provide their own accommodation.

Donna Walker, Effingham, Surrey

To those who say the Trust should not protect the green belt and are acting as nimby's I suggest you check the "object definition" of The National Trust on The Charity Commission website. If you are too lazy to do so it is reproduced below: -

"THE PRESERVATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATION OF LANDS AND TENEMENTS (INCLUDING BUILDINGS) OF BEAUTY OR HISTORIC INTEREST AND, AS REGARDS LANDS, FOR THE PRESERVATION (AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE) OF THEIR NATURAL ASPECT, FEATURES AND ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE. ALSO THE PRESERVATION OF FURNITURE, PICTURES AND CHATTELS OF ANY DESCRIPTION HAVING NATIONAL AND HISTORIC OR ARTISTIC INTEREST. (FOR FURTHER DETAILS SEE THE NATIONAL TRUST ACTS, 1907 TO 1971)."

Based on the objects clause of the charity it is entirely right it should comment. There are other ways to increase available housing without destroying the countryside such as more brownfield development and bringing empty middle class houses back in to use by renting.

R Skelhorn, leeds, UK

Well, you can't blame every thing on immigrants but with Labour's open door policy over the past ten years and probably 3 to 4 million added to the population, you must be in complete denial if you say immigartion has nothing to do with housing demand. Brown and Blair threw open the doors to boost their so called economic record with the slightest condideration of the long term effects. Whats even more disturbing is that if the current immigration trend continues, these island will need a lot more than 3 million new house. Immigartion just can not continue unless you want to pave the whole of England with concrete and its about time every body faced up to the fact that these islands are already overcrowded.

chris, woodbridge,

I can't afford a house and live opposite Oxford's greenbelt, which is under threat from development. I might benefit from more building, but oppose it as it's immigration that is causing all this increased population. Even if immigration IS benefitting the economy (which is doubtful...) I'd rather be worse off financially and better off in terms of community, culture and greenspace. Gordon Brown's open door policy is destroying this Country- I back the National Trust.

Dan, Oxford, England

Many thanks to the National Trust. What a state are we in when it takes a charity to save the countrys assets from being squandered by the government hand in hand with greedy 'developers'. I'm joining the NT today.

rikrok, London, UK.

According to the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) the UK population is predicted to grow by 11million people between 2006 and 2031. What alternative to releasing more land for building does the National Trust propose in order to house all these extra people ?. Has Sir William Proby considered living in an inner-city brown field flat ?.
.
If the NT now wishes to become a political organisation openly obstructing development approved by a freely elected government then, at the very least, their charitable status should be revoked.

Anthony, London, UK

Who are the National Trust to decide how Britain develops?

The UK desperately needs more houses, it also need better architecture in the country, rather than the pastiche of old houses people are forced to build, but of course the National Trust is stuck way in the past, with a culture of you can't do that...

Andy Davies, Glos,, UK

At last the Trust is fighting to save the country side. It has my whole hearted support in this. This is what the trusrt should be all about. A government that gives the right to roam then builds all over it.

Johnny Norfolk, Mileham Norfolk, GB

Oliver, I disagree with you, this is exactly why the trust was formed. Yes young people need homes but do you realise why we need so many new homes , it's for immigrants, they are the reason we need 260 new homes a day & I am damn if we should agree to a despoilation of England for the governments lack of control & lack of policy. Get onto them to send some of them back. I believe there are many brown field sites which could be used & at the same time would clear up ugly areas.

Maggie Millington, Brittany , France

If this is their way forward, then for me it's time to let the membership lapse.

Occam, Solihull, UK

The maths is simple, small island - large population. And with Labours open doors policy its only going to get worse and worse...

Adrian, Aldershot, England

Each of us needs to stand up to any development of 'green' land. More houses mean more pollution and less space for our dwindling wildlife. Reducing total population should be the ultimate solution to the housing problem. Immediate action is required to stop our bulldozer driving government.

Chris, Coventry, UK

So we have a Nimby-In-Chief, haven't we?

Housing development has been stymied in the last twenty years or so. The need is dire, hence the scale of the catch-up.

As usual, it's the most vulnerable members of the community who pay the price of the current situation and live sometimes in squalor. It's a disgrace.

The behaviour of Sir William Proby is borderline antisocial. What about an ASBO?

John, London, UK

One would think the average national trust member has been a home owner for many years and therefore because they were able to easily afford their mortgage when purchased there is little sympathy for the now first time buyers now.

The question could be posed, if when they purchased their home we were not building on green belt land, would they have been able to buy in the first place? I am sure if the situation was like this we would have less nymbyism in their thinking.

I am a National trust member and do agree needless building on green belt is bad, but giving the population which we have allowed to grow so much is a necessity.

mark, plymouth,

It is good news indeed that there are those willing to step forward and attempt to stop the Governments attempt to Californicate England!!!!

Bob Evans, Anaheim, California

We must not allow the government to destroy our heritage, a vital legacy for our children.

There is plenty of empty land in Scotland - a large landmass with a tiny population. The Scots are also well-funded by Westminster, why not ask some of our new communities to live in Scotland. Thus easing the housing problems in congested England.

Nimbyism - why not. It's about time we stood up for our history, heritage and culture in this country. I think that I might become a member of the National Trust and join the fight to protect 'our Green and Pleasant land'. While it is still Green and Pleasant..

Peter Holmes, London,

Surely if the government had not let in many more migrants than it could cope with, then we would not need so many new homes.
You can't just continually build on green land and 'hope for the best'
Does everyone in the UK want to spend their leisure time on housing estate. Because, soon there will be nowhere else to go?

Davey, Birmingham, UK

I am young, but certainly not disenfranchised. Compared with the rest of the world, it seems there is no where that can be called wilderness. I my self think we should improve what we have in our cities improving buildings and transportation and streamline urban living, not spawl outwards. This will inevitably require the use of more cars and create more poloution. We need these wide open spaces for our health - both body and mind. Please leave what little we have left alone.
Thankyou National Trust

Jon Manning, Plymouth, England Devon.

Network Rail are currently laying waste the green spaces along the railways by refusing to coppice the trees to ensure the stability of the slopes. Instead they are poisoning trees and constructing steel fencing and creating sterile zones throughout the country.

Catherine Harrison, Brighton and Hove, UK