If the planning process was overhauled and more houses built would everything be OK?

CLAPTON

choille wrote: »

Rude & potentially racist & offensive.

I'm not talking about any single location, I was referring to the whole of the country.

I would suggest you go back and read your own post
and then engage the brain before posting again

GwylimT

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Where is this place?

Fairly close to Leeds

dktreesea

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Most of the land is "owned" by the few. They dont want commoners living on it.

Also we in this country need to move toward properly engineered and designed factory produced homes and move away from men gluing clods of clay together with mortar on some windswept muddy site.

Be careful what you wish for. We have some schools like that, put together by Miller Homes with parts built off site. So badly built that a wall recently collapsed in high winds at one of our primaries. 17 schools now closed because they are thought to be structurally unsound and none reopened as of yet.

Conrad

'Build it and they will come'


Migrants, that is.


Migrants in Britain share photos of their new shiny home with the folks back home, usually HB supported (I deal with lettings and talk to many letting agents). Anyone thinking simply building more homes is a solution is really not using a scintilla of logic


One day even the most ardent immigration supporter will notice the mass congestion, fumes, noise, development, destruction of once magical green spaces and relentless demand push shortages that can never be met as long as net immigration remains so unsustainably high.


If you're Hamish, you can celebrate some lame notion your pension is safer the more Humanity enters our shores (as long as you ignore the evidence from nations with limited immigration). Even if this were true, what a high price to pay.

michaels

Conrad wrote: »

'Build it and they will come'


Migrants, that is.


Migrants in Britain share photos of their new shiny home with the folks back home, usually HB supported (I deal with lettings and talk to many letting agents). Anyone thinking simply building more homes is a solution is really not using a scintilla of logic

So this argument won when it came to new roads - there is enough pent up demand for road space that any increase will immediately be taken up (and indeed in cities they have then move on to the 'well if we are willing to have unmet demand and ration via traffic jams then why not actively reduced the available road space?)

Are we happy to accept that housing is like travel, and that we should ration more and more strictly (via price, social housing waiting lists etc) as demand further exceeds supply?

choille

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would suggest you go back and read your own post
and then engage the brain before posting again

Yes, Oh Master.

I will obey........:eek:

kabayiri

Conrad wrote: »

...
One day even the most ardent immigration supporter will notice the mass congestion, fumes, noise, development, destruction of once magical green spaces and relentless demand push shortages that can never be met as long as net immigration remains so unsustainably high.
...

If you believe the recent news type programs, then the migrants are only accelerating a process where population, and hence consumption and wealth derived from consumption, becomes increasingly concentrated in hot spots.

Economic migrants have no interest in places like Fleetwood; some towns around Manchester; or parts of Liverpool. They want to go where other migrants like themselves have found work and got a foothold.

What to do with the places which are losing population? Well, the government spots empty property with cheap rent, and sends the non-workers and asylum seekers there.

It all seems logical, but what breaks this cycle? Will we end up with a greater polarisation of wealth between regions?

Conrad

michaels wrote: »

So this argument won when it came to new roads - there is enough pent up demand for road space that any increase will immediately be taken up (and indeed in cities they have then move on to the 'well if we are willing to have unmet demand and ration via traffic jams then why not actively reduced the available road space?)

Are we happy to accept that housing is like travel, and that we should ration more and more strictly (via price, social housing waiting lists etc) as demand further exceeds supply?

I always use the M25 analogy when people tell me building more homes is the solution to the housing shortage.
The M25 resulted in even more demand, not less. New housing and infrastructure are precisely the magnetic pulls that will increase immigration.


The only answer is a radical new approach to immigration.


I used to like living in the SE but in many ways it's becoming less pleasant - I abhor relentless development. So much of who we are came out of the landscape we were lucky enough to live in. Once it's gone it's gone.


And note the more farm land we build upon, the less secure we are in terms of food supply and the more we rely on intensive agriculture which is bad on many counts .

westernpromise

kabayiri wrote: »

Economic migrants have no interest in places like Fleetwood; some towns around Manchester; or parts of Liverpool. They want to go where other migrants like themselves have found work and got a foothold.

What to do with the places which are losing population? Well, the government spots empty property with cheap rent, and sends the non-workers and asylum seekers there.

Areas have empty property and cheap rent for a reason, which is usually that there's no work to be had. So sending asylum seekers to such areas ensures that the taxpayer wil be fully funding them indefinitely.

kabayiri

westernpromise wrote: »

Areas have empty property and cheap rent for a reason, which is usually that there's no work to be had. So sending asylum seekers to such areas ensures that the taxpayer wil be fully funding them indefinitely.

When the industrial priorities of the country changed in the '80s, many would argue this was a good thing for UK plc.

However, we failed to work out what to do with some of the places which were impacted the most. We are still paying for these places today.

Maybe we should just scrap a seaside town in demise, before it becomes a long term burden.