Would YOU turn down 275 million to 'save' your village?
Discussion
rover 623gsi said:
you're the one who started extraploating figures to suggest what was going to happen in the future
When the entire south of England is concreted over in 200 years and people bleat about no green spaces they'll only be getting what they deserve.
as for somewhere will have to be found to house these people - it won't happen because we, literally, cannot build houses quick enough. The planning system is long winded. There is not enough money floating around. There are not enough skilled workers. There is not even enough scaffolding (literally) to keep up with current demand. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that housebuilding numbers are going to escalate in the next 20 or 30 years. It is a myth that Britain's countryside is being concreted over.
Thank you for nullifying your own argument for me. My comment was a broad opinion and sweeping generalisation. You however gave a set of absolute figures, which you now realise was not the wisest action. I'll be happy to accept an apology whenever you're ready. And please stop using questionable current data to illustrate a 200-odd years in the future scenario: It may be your opinion and that's fine, but to think that because there's not enough scaffolding right now will have any impact long, long after you're gone is laughable. But not as amusing as this gem "There is absolutely nothing to suggest that housebuilding numbers are going to escalate in the next 20 or 30 years." Other than the second fastest growing population in Europe you mean? Obviously that will include shops, hospitals and the entire infrastructure of that kind of urban development. When the entire south of England is concreted over in 200 years and people bleat about no green spaces they'll only be getting what they deserve.
as for somewhere will have to be found to house these people - it won't happen because we, literally, cannot build houses quick enough. The planning system is long winded. There is not enough money floating around. There are not enough skilled workers. There is not even enough scaffolding (literally) to keep up with current demand. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that housebuilding numbers are going to escalate in the next 20 or 30 years. It is a myth that Britain's countryside is being concreted over.
the data I am paraphrasing from is ONS data - it's not my opinion. The evidence shows clearly that housingbuilding numbers have fallen over a long period of time (with the odd annual variation) and that there is nothing to suggest that we will get back to numbers of the 1950s and 60s. The amount of land covered by housing (or other development if you wish to include that as well) is not my opinion but is a matter of public record. The fact that most of the general public vastly over-estimate the amout of land that is built upon is not my fault but I like to correct people's assumptions whenever I can.
Edited by rover 623gsi on Wednesday 27th May 11:48
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Timmy40 said:
Pheo said:
and everyone local with their nice big houses is simply pulling up the ladder on everyone left.
It's the planning policies I'm afraid. Estates are zoned for towns and larger villages, but thanks to the CPRE's very effective campaigning last century most LAs have a blanket ban on new houses in the countryside. The effect has been to slowly strangle the life out of the countryside which is now a museum staffed by a rapidly ageing cohort of farmers running ever larger farms as the small ones are broken up when the elderly farmers die ( there kids having long since moved to cities or towns because they couldn't afford to live locally ). I live deep in the Hampshire countryside- it is unfortunately mostly dead. The fields are free of animals and insects, the locals are all of an "age", or renting. Theere is a LOT of land that would suit homeowners, and landowners who would be happy to sell. Where I live used to be a village up until the 19th Century when famine emptied it- the houses were enventually knocked down. We still have a church, a "ex" village hall and an ex "pub", but no houses!
The LA won't support the idea of putting houses back on the terraces that still exist, and where houses once thrived. there is every reason to build houses there.
The solutions are many, and far too complex to be solved by ranting on the internet, however here are a few.
- Build small villages from scratch in places where they can be accessed easily by commuters (we have to realise that many, many people still need to commute, often to London and therefore transport links are essential). No existing village need be swallowed up to create a dormitory town, why not purpose-build dormitory villages (apart from the fact that they would be proportionally more to construct, so the builders don't want them).
- Encourage teleworking. I moved from the SE back to my childhood home of N. Yorks as I can now work from home very effectively 90% of the time, the rest of the time I'm 2.5 hours from London by train. N Yorks council have been very active in getting rural broadband to as many areas as possible and we enjoy 80meg fibre in my village - move people out of the SE - my office is still in London, but I seldom work there.
- My local council held a village meeting as they are suggesting we accept 40 new homes as part of a policy of introducing more affordable housing (Some sub £400k, some sub £250k and some sub £150k) into villages which still have a shop and school.
The village currently has 261 houses.
They brought figures showing an increase the percentage of of over 60s from 23% to 38% over 10 years from 2001 and a selection of possible sites. They explained that if done in one go they could hold developers to account to provide the types of houses that would encourage families, ensure adequate drainage etc. and asked for input on everything from flood areas to routes used to enter and leave the village.
Growing the village to 300 houses, but taking account of the needs and concerns of the villagers strikes me as the correct way to go about things, a relatively large increase (~15%) in the size of the village should be achievable fairly quickly and painlessly.
popeyewhite said:
Any discussion that involves extrapolating current figures to 250 years in the future is pointless.
Obviously. What most people have managed to grasp though is that it was done to, successfully, ridicule your own daft extrapolation that the whole of the south east would be concreteted over in 200 years. You're talking crap, move on.The funny thing is, locals could buy the land around them in a mutual agreement, rent the land, and protect themselves from such things.
But they always just sit there and then whinge at local farmers when they sell land.
The people have the power if they want... but they leave it in the hands of farmers who will ultimately sell it if someone is offering them an early retirement.
Dave
But they always just sit there and then whinge at local farmers when they sell land.
The people have the power if they want... but they leave it in the hands of farmers who will ultimately sell it if someone is offering them an early retirement.
Dave
fblm said:
popeyewhite said:
Any discussion that involves extrapolating current figures to 250 years in the future is pointless.
Obviously. What most people have managed to grasp though is that it was done to, successfully, ridicule your own daft extrapolation that the whole of the south east would be concreteted over in 200 years. You're talking crap, move on.fblm said:
Obviously
Thank you. So far so good.fblm said:
What most people have managed to grasp though is that it was done to, successfully, ridicule your own daft extrapolation that the whole of the south east would be concreteted over in 200 years. You're talking crap, move on.
Doh! Doesn't know the difference between extrapolate/predict and can't spell. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff