Mister M Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 There wasnt any "green belt outside of London till the 1947 planning act...... nothing like being wrong yet again is there? Ah another good piece of legislation from the real Labour Government of 1945-1951 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 There wasnt any "green belt outside of London till the 1947 planning act...... nothing like being wrong yet again is there? And UK suburban growth boomed in the 50's and 60's alongside high density housing, more of both is desperately needed now along with Polish migrants to build them. ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 19:12 ---------- Ah another good piece of legislation from the real Labour Government of 1945-1951 It was a terrible piece of legislation which was only brought in to stop more of the working class living in the suburbs. ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 19:13 ---------- Isn't 2.7% enough? Jesus. Not nearly enough, eco-nuts should be ashamed of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctrine Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I own several properties, but because I have a social conscience I allow people to rent them from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Not nearly enough, eco-nuts should be ashamed of themselves. On what basis do you claim that 2.7% of the UK's landmass isn't a large enough proportion of built environment? What should the figure be? ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 19:29 ---------- I own several properties, but because I have a social conscience I allow people to rent them from me. Why does that qualify you as having a 'social conscience' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctrine Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 On what basis do you claim that 2.7% of the UK's landmass isn't a large enough proportion of built environment? What should the figure be? ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 19:29 ---------- Why does that qualify you as having a 'social conscience' ? If all the people who owned property chose not to let them out, homelessness would rocket, hence we are helping to reduce homelessness and thus have a social conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 If all the people who owned property chose to let them out, homelessness would go up because most property owners only have the one property, which they live in. The fact that you derive an income from providing rental properties does not mean you have a social conscience. Nor does it mean you lack one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctrine Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 If all the people who owned property chose to let them out, homelessness would go up because most property owners only have the one property, which they live in. The fact that you derive an income from providing rental properties does not mean you have a social conscience. Nor does it mean you lack one. The fact that I let my properties out proves beyond any reasonable doubt that I am helping prevent homelessness. This is the manner in which my philanthropic tendencies surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 And UK suburban growth boomed in the 50's and 60's alongside high density housing, more of both is desperately needed now along with Polish migrants to build them. ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 19:12 ---------- It was a terrible piece of legislation which was only brought in to stop more of the working class living in the suburbs. ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 19:13 ---------- Not nearly enough, eco-nuts should be ashamed of themselves. You've just contradicted yourself in the same post, which suggests to me that you either don't know what you are talking about, or are trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 You've just contradicted yourself in the same post, which suggests to me that you either don't know what you are talking about, or are trolling. Neither love, it’s the fact that you can’t accept and understand what this country needs or you prefer not to. ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 22:02 ---------- On what basis do you claim that 2.7% of the UK's landmass isn't a large enough proportion of built environment? What should the figure be? ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 19:29 ---------- Why does that qualify you as having a 'social conscience' ? Isn’t it obvuious? Where would you rather live in a tent pitched up in some field or a nice new safe secure home with the basics such as electricity, warmth, running water and your personal space? ---------- Post added 12-12-2012 at 22:04 ---------- What should the figure be? Whatever the housing figure should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 On what basis do you claim that 2.7% of the UK's landmass isn't a large enough proportion of built environment? I'd be interested in knowing where Green Web got their 2.7% figure from. This report (table on page 60) says that 6.8% of the UK is urban environment. Green Web's use of the term 'built on' is interesting. This Beeb article explains that it does not include things like domestic gardens, allotments, public parks, rivers, etc. Unless Green Web is suggesting that we should all live in complete concrete jungles, I'd suggest that the 6.8% figure is a more representative one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.