On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Tough )

Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the
way to central london.

B2003

On 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:51 +0100, Graeme wrote:

On 30/08/2012 08:57, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland wrote:

In , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, Martin remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when the
residents would all need cars to get to jobs.

The aim of eco-towns is to get car journeys down to 50% of all trips.
I'm not sure if that counts very local trips, but they should be
provided with enhanced public transport in order to qualify for the
name.

Policy should be to get the hundreds of thousands of empty homes back into use, rather than consuming more countryside.

Very laudable in theory. In practice many of those empty properties are
in areas no one wants to live.

Like central London, you mean? There are loads of houses in the most expensive areas which have been boarded up and the
sanitary fixtures destroyed to make them uninhabitable.

For "loads" read "some".

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 30/08/2012 14:12, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:34:39 +0100, wrote:

Optimist wrote:

"Oh look! We've got all those brownfield sites! Let's build over
the rest of XXXshire!"

Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built
on. Many think all new developments can be on brownfield sites despite only
14% of demand being catered for on current brownfield sites. This should be
resisted as we now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these sites
vacant, cleaned up and made natural again by turning them into parks, woods
and encouraging wildlife for the local population to enjoy.

This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the
quality of life of urban dwellers. Righting the wrongs of the incompetent
planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath could be actively
encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The
deliberate differentiation between town and country requires abolition as
the Town& Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words town and
country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate
societies. It creates distrust.

One of the reasons that developers do not like to have to use brownfield sites is the cost of decontaminating land that
has been used for industry.

One of the reasons planners want developers to use brownfield sites is
because they pay the cost of decontaminating the land.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:07:09 +0100
"News" wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:00:59 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:37:59 on Thu, 30
Aug 2012, d remarked:

With only about 7.5% of the land settled,

7.5%? Where did you get that figure from?

I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me.

Do farms not count as settled?

In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.

Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean
the house it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't
count gardens
as settled land either.

As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry.

Its not how much is physically buried under concrete that matters - its how
much is used. And there is VERY little land in the UK that isn't used. Even
the hills are used for sheep farming. And don't give me that "we can spare
some agricultural land" crap. We can't. We're reliant enough on food imports
as it is.

B2003

On 30/08/2012 14:14, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
d wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...


They may howl but they have been effectively part of London for many
years. See also Salford/Manchester.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 12:43:12 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, d remarked:

Do farms not count as settled?

In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.

Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean the house
it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't count gardens
as settled land either.

You can count the farmhouse's garden (if it has one), but not the
fields, because they are a business.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:07:09 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, News remarked:
With only about 7.5% of the land settled,
7.5%? Where did you get that figure from?
I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me.

Do farms not count as settled?
In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.
Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean
the house it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't
count gardens as settled land either.

As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry.

So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens?
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:54:33 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:07:09 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, News remarked:
With only about 7.5% of the land settled,
7.5%? Where did you get that figure from?
I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me.

Do farms not count as settled?
In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.
Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean
the house it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't
count gardens as settled land either.

As I wrote, then only 2.5 % of the UK is under masonry.

So it's 2.5% under a house or concrete, and 5% in people's gardens?

Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask themselves where the food is to come from. We cannot
rely solely on imports, as the population rises in countries that normally export their surpluses. Soylent Green,
anyone? Land is also required for recreation and nature (unless you want to destroy national parks), transport, schools
and hospitals, shops, offices and factories, mines, reservoirs.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:53:01 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:43:12 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, d remarked:

Do farms not count as settled?

In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.

Why? Settled land means that thats lived on. That doesn't just mean the house
it means all land under the same deeds. Otherwise you can't count gardens
as settled land either.

You can count the farmhouse's garden (if it has one), but not the
fields, because they are a business.

So? Don't office blocks count as settled land then? If not then most of central
london is available for housing.

B2003

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:42:36 +0100
Optimist wrote:
Those who think that fields can just be built on ad lib should ask themselves
where the food is to come from. We cannot

I think in the minds of these people it comes from some magic food machine
run by pixies all pre packaged and labelled.

rely solely on imports, as the population rises in countries that normally expo
rt their surpluses. Soylent Green,

Given the droughts in eastern europe and the USA this year...

B2003