d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:09:54 +0100
Optimist wrote:
act prevents building on green fields. Only 7.5% of the UKs land
mass is settled and that figure includes green spaces and gardens
which brings masonry on land to about 2.5%. Ignore right-wing
propaganda that we are concreting over the Countryside.

England already has over 400 people per square kilometre, one of the
most crowded in Europe. As we have to import much
of our food, we are vulnerable to worldwide food shortages.
Over-development is causing problems with the hydrology, as
heavy rainfall is flushed out to sea rather than recharge the
aquifers. Much of the undeveloped land is not suitable
for building on, unless you propose to put new towns on moorland and
on the Pennines. Opinion in this country is

Careful, you're trying to argue with a lefty using facts. They don't
like that and get all confused. Bluster, dogma and empty rhetoric
they're much more comfortable with.

Idiot, I am no lefty. But clearly no brainwashed right-wing sycophant. I
gave the FACTS and percentage of land usage in the UK. The UK IS EMPTY! I
am sure your brainwashing forced you to forget them immediately. Do you doff
your cap at the Toffs?

discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit to two
children per family and reducing immigration to
below the emigration rate.

Cue mass wailing from Liberty and similar human rights bed wetters.

Another Hitler fan.

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.

Graeme Wall wrote:

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old
docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft
shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to
town centre jobs.

Brownfield sites cannot scrape the surface of the housing shortfall.

On 30/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is
that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its
expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

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

d wrote:

If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to
mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an
extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony
Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions.

Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this
act. Why? To keep house price high to appeal to owner/occupiers to gain
votes, while the country as whole suffered. The state of the nation was
throw out of the window.

The knock-on was that debt after debt was poured into land which resulted in
the Credit Crunch - a collapse.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

On 30/08/2012 10:36, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the old
docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft
shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to
town centre jobs.

Brownfield sites cannot scrape the surface of the housing shortfall.

Cite?

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

On 30/08/2012 10:44, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.

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

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:44, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.

Such a wayward mind. The point is supercities. Duh!

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:36, News wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:

At least some brownfield sites may be close to where jobs are. In
Southampton the two major brownfields developments are part of the
old docks (Ocean Village) and currently the old Vosper Thorneycroft
shipyard in Woolston. Both of which allow relatively easy access to
town centre jobs.

Brownfield sites cannot scrape the surface of the housing shortfall.

Cite?

Fool. read what I wrote.