Green Web Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 The main reason for this is that there is a conspiracy of silence between the land owning aristocrisy, CPRE and the banks, because they refuse to allow their landholdings to be added to the land registry. There is no official record of the ownership and acerage in the vast majority of england and wales. The banks prefer to keep the bulk of the populace living in crowded cities in small houses because it continues to drive the increase in property values and therefore mortgages and mortgage interest payments. The CPRE continue to wail about "concreting over the contryside" despite the fact that such a threat is massively out of proportion, while their mates in the Tory Party pretend to be empathetic with the working man while jetting off on 4 foreign holidays per year, and securing their own gold plated pensions as they reduce everyone elses. Governments have even got rid of standards about how big a dwelling should be, so they can allow tiny flats to be built by property speculators. The flats built in the 1950s and 60s have massive rooms in comparison. They want to crush as many people in to as small a space as possible. In the rest of europe, property prices are often worked out due to the actual area inside the dwelling, whereas our own corrupt and unregulated system depends upon how many bedrooms, despite the fact that some of the bedrooms can barely fit a bed inside, and many modern garages won't even fit a tiny car and allow the driver to actually get out of the car door. We are being conned by the wealthy system which wishes to protect its own interests. This is more or less what i suspected, great post My brother in London is paying the same what I pay in rent a month, a week for a smaller size property! Its unbelievably crammed, they now have smaller double bed sizes to make single rooms into doubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 It'd actually be about an actual 8% increase.... Why would it be 8%? Surely it would all depend on where, how high, designs and improved transport links etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Why would it be 8%? Surely it would all depend on where, how high, designs and improved transport links etc? You were suggesting an increase from 11% to 12%..an increase of 1 percentage point but 12% is about 8% greater than 11% so for every 100 acres of "urbanised" land we'd have 108 after your increase..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Just how much fresh air do we actually need? Lets supposing we had a mass building programme and the UK was now 12% urbanised, is this 1% increased urbanisation really going to be that detrimental to the environment? Yes because there are already problems associated with over population, the UK despite being very wet as problems supplying water, can’t grow all the food we need, can’t employ everyone that needs employment. We should be looking at ways of stabilising or slowly reducing the population not increasing it and building over the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agriculture http://www.verticalfarm.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobgok23 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletin/planningdaily/article/1108041/homes-opposition-revealed-despite-housing-need-recognition/ New decent homes are desperately needed, yet only 11% of the UK is urbanised. We are such a selfish bunch of people and forget that many of the flats and houses we live in now will have been designated green belt at one time. Its not just MP's and bankers contributing to the demise of this country, its all these nimbys and fashionable eco freaks. Strange how it's the same groups of people who have flooded the country with immigrants, but do not want new homes built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Strange how it's the same groups of people who have flooded the country with immigrants, but do not want new homes built. Are you saying it’s the Labour party that don't want new houses building? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobgok23 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Are you saying it’s the Labour party that don't want new houses building? I'm saying the people that are nimby's are also very liberal with immigration. As long as the immigrants do not move into the area they live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletin/planningdaily/article/1108041/homes-opposition-revealed-despite-housing-need-recognition/ New decent homes are desperately needed, yet only 11% of the UK is urbanised. . compared to 15% in Germany which has a much more stable and less expensive housing market. successive governments have restricted house building in favour of a quick buck from property speculators who made fortunes selling the restricted supply of houses in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I'm saying the people that are nimby's are also very liberal with immigration. As long as the immigrants do not move into the area they live. Governments decide on the level of immigration and not the people, they just decide which government we have, probably most people you would call a nimby would be Conservative and it was Labour that increased immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.