We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What shortgage 421,306 homes built in a single year in france!
Comments
-
This is what seems to set current policy
Whilst we have more people who need to live less to a home, the less we allow them to build and the more we cram them together, the better
With spin doctor magic it is transformed into
Whilst we need to build more homes, the less we concreate over the land, the better
They are both the same, the first does not hide the truth, the second does0 -
I'm sure that a lot of rural towns and villages could stand a small expansion done in a sympathetic manner. But it a lot of the areas where more property is needed it will not take much before the urban areas move.
It would good if someone looked at the whole area identified the areas that could be built on with the least impact and planned accordingly maybe putting new infrastructure to make area more suitable instead of the ad hoc system that operates now.
It just occured to me
a number of posters like yourself, are concerned and think that many new homes may be too big an impact too quickly and it needs to be planed and managed
while
a number of french or familiar with france posters, are questing where all the new housing has gone becuase they have not seen so many
seems 400,000 a year as france has been doing for >20 years, isnt that big an issue in reality0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »People seem to have no idea just how little of the UK is built on....
But the area built on is not evenly distributed. As cells has identified there are areas inside the M25 that could be built on but if you do the amount of green space other than parks would be very small.0 -
I'm sure that a lot of rural towns and villages could stand a small expansion done in a sympathetic manner. But it a lot of the areas where more property is needed it will not take much before the urban areas move.
It would good if someone looked at the whole area identified the areas that could be built on with the least impact and planned accordingly maybe putting new infrastructure to make area more suitable instead of the ad hoc system that operates now.
It would be good if the key infrastructure was actually put in place before or at the same time as the development took place too.
Particularly transport infrastructure but also eductaion and health capacity.
The region I live indoesn't have a current local development plan. There is an overall need identified but developers a simply carpet bombing applications. Some of their applications would see the total increase in capacity targeted at one town rather than spread thoughout the area.
This isn't a high employment area so all developments will lead to extensive commutes and families needing two vehicles, minimum, typically. Unfortunately the developers planned densities suggest they will use public transport. There is therefore insufficient storage space for all the vehicles (to reduce costs increase density) and the road infrastructure impact is "proved" to be suffiicent. This despite several projects are on hold due to lack of state finance."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
It just occured to me
a number of posters like yourself, are concerned and think that many new homes may be too big an impact too quickly and it needs to be planed and managed
while
a number of french or familiar with france posters, are questing where all the new housing has gone becuase they have not seen so many
seems 400,000 a year as france has been doing for >20 years, isnt that big an issue in reality
I live in the south east and I can quite easily show you where the houses have gone in my area.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »It would be good if the key infrastructure was actually put in place before or at the same time as the development took place too.
Particularly transport infrastructure but also eductaion and health capacity.
The region I live indoesn't have a current local development plan. There is an overall need identified but developers a simply carpet bombing applications. Some of their applications would see the total increase in capacity targeted at one town rather than spread thoughout the area.
This isn't a high employment area so all developments will lead to extensive commutes and families needing two vehicles, minimum, typically. Unfortunately the developers planned densities suggest they will use public transport. There is therefore insufficient storage space for all the vehicles (to reduce costs increase density) and the road infrastructure impact is "proved" to be suffiicent. This despite several projects are on hold due to lack of state finance.
In a town not to far from me there is a development planned to double size. This town has the lowest house prices by far in the area mainly because of poor transport links particularly lack of train station. There are no concrete plans to improve transport links.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »How exactly is this "concreting over" under even the most hyperbolic use of the term?
97%+ of the UK is not used for residential housing.
We have more land used for golf courses than for housing.
And more land used for horses than for humans.
The trouble is the demand is concentrated on probably 1% of that.
You also ignore land that can't easily be developed - e.g. Cairngorms, NW Highlands. Lake DIstrict, Pennines etc.
Likely flood areas.
Water absorption areas.
Agricultural use.
Wealthy landowners private estates with all those grouse moors and wind farms.
I am sure the list could continue.
I accept that there would still be capacity but not as glibly post."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »How exactly is this "concreting over" under even the most hyperbolic use of the term?
97%+ of the UK is not used for residential housing.
We have more land used for golf courses than for housing.
And more land used for horses than for humans.
Land for horses is very common in my area and some of them could be used to build on with minimal impact. But this land is valued by the horse owners and they not keen to sell.
That's why you need a joined up plan which never happens.0 -
It just occured to me
a number of posters like yourself, are concerned and think that many new homes may be too big an impact too quickly and it needs to be planed and managed
while
a number of french or familiar with france posters, are questing where all the new housing has gone becuase they have not seen so many
seems 400,000 a year as france has been doing for >20 years, isnt that big an issue in reality
You talk as if to be concerned about your environment is a bad thing.0 -
The ONS and INSEE project that the population of the uk will increase more than the population of France will increase overthe next decade so we should be building more than the French not fewer
Ok..........
I'd be interested to understand why they think this when for the last century, the French population has increased at a faster rate than the British:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards