Sickening Anti-Housing Propaganda By The Telegraph And "protect Rural England"

[Tired of Waiting]

The government will soon publish a planning reform, probably reducing the current planning blockage.

But anti-housing propaganda is already out, from lobbies such as "Protect Rural England", published by the Telegraph.

Very "subtle" propaganda

They just write a few words like "nuclear plants, motorways and airport runways" under this photo:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

"Bodmin Moor in Cornwall" !!!

:angry:

That is just revolting, sickening really.

LINK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8613926/Beauty-spots-under-siege-by-Government-policy.html

.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[miko]

Then after hearing from the NIMBY's the govenment will do a U turn on planning leaving us back to square one.

[leicestersq]

TOW,

where do you draw the line?

If the policy is just to build more and more housing in response to increasing population due to uncontrolled immigration, there will be little left that is green in the south in only a few short years.

Doesnt new home building only make sense, AFTER we have managed to control the immigration problem?

[Tired of Waiting]

Then after hearing from the NIMBY's the govenment will do a U turn on planning leaving us back to square one.

That is my fear. Any attempt to unblock this planning system will suffer a HUGE opposition from a lot of property vested interests.

[OnionTerror]

...you'd think from, that they'd be building 100,000 houses on Dartmoor, however, if you look at the "small detail", its actually a development of 15 houses in a small village...

http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/countryside/landscapes/update/item/2361-threats-to-areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty

[Tired of Waiting]

TOW,

where do you draw the line?

If the policy is just to build more and more housing in response to increasing population due to uncontrolled immigration, there will be little left that is green in the south in only a few short years.

Doesnt new home building only make sense, AFTER we have managed to control the immigration problem?

We had many threads about that.

For instance: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=164631&view=findpost&p=3010711

I think it's better to keep these 2 topics in different threads, or this one will be hijacked as well.

Or I would even start to suspect that property Vis are finding the immigration issue very convenient to gather "popular" "mass" support for their side...

[Unexpected]

TOW,

where do you draw the line?

If the policy is just to build more and more housing in response to increasing population due to uncontrolled immigration, there will be little left that is green in the south in only a few short years.

Doesnt new home building only make sense, AFTER we have managed to control the immigration problem?

Are you serious? If the UK population was increased to 100,000,000 we'd only need to use up an extra 1% of the UK's land. What is your V.I. in making such comments? Homeowner perhaps?

[Tired of Waiting]

...you'd think from, that they'd be building 100,000 houses on Dartmoor, however, if you look at the "small detail", its actually a development of 15 houses in a small village...

http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/countryside/landscapes/update/item/2361-threats-to-areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty

Thanks for that DB.

[miko]

TOW,

where do you draw the line?

If the policy is just to build more and more housing in response to increasing population due to uncontrolled immigration, there will be little left that is green in the south in only a few short years.

Doesnt new home building only make sense, AFTER we have managed to control the immigration problem?

Not where it is drawn now .

Yes if we just let more and more people in and build and build then one day there will be no Green land left . However that is not a few short years away.

Drive around the 126 miles of the M25 and take any of the 30 exits onto the A roads and head outwards from the M25 not inwards to London and you will see green land everywhere miles and miles of it .

Or start your trip in East London on the A13 and drive East out to Essex there is loads and loads of empty brown field sites laying empty , they have been talking about the East Thames corridor for years and years but very little ever gets done and when it is the prices are way beyound the average working person.

[Unexpected]

We had many threads about that.

For instance: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=164631&view=findpost&p=3010711

I think it's better to keep these 2 topics in different threads, or this one will be hijacked as well.

Or I would even start to suspect that property Vis are finding the immigration issue very convenient to gather "popular" "mass" support for their side...

Woops. Sorry.

[Tired of Waiting]

Are you serious? If the UK population was increased to 100,000,000 we'd only need to use up an extra 1% of the UK's land. What is your V.I. in making such comments? Homeowner perhaps?

Good post.

[Tired of Waiting]

Woops. Sorry.

That's OK. Shooting him down is allowed.

[Riedquat]

Can we try to distinguish between people who don't have any problem at all with more building and those who would prefer not to have it but are simply facing the reality of adequately housing the population?

[OnionTerror]

More info...

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Housing-bonanza-green-belt-sites/story-12872038-detail/story.html

Campaigners in the West have warned against allowing a development boom on green fields, following reports the Government is to relax the planning rules.

The coalition is preparing to publish its long-awaited National Planning Policy Framework, and a leaked draft suggests it will tilt the balance in favour of developers – leaving large tracts of the countryside open for development.

Reports suggest councils will have to show that an application in the Green Belt would cause adverse impacts that significantly outweigh the benefits. That would replace the present guidance, which contains a strong presumption of any development of the Green Belt.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is part of the Government’s plans to revive the economy, and is intended to prevent control by NIMBYS (Not In My Back Yard Supporters). The coalition has scrapped the controversial Regional Spatial Strategy which would have imposed 600,000 new houses on the South West by 2026, and was highly unpopular across the region. But it is keen to ensure that more houses are built., and is introducing a New Homes Bonus, giving councils money for each additional property they approve.

John Blake, branch administrator, of Wiltshire Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) told the Daily Press: “There is a huge amount of pressure about to build new houses. The council gets a bonus for each new home that is built, but it does not have any money for the infrastructure that is needed.” So it needs the New Homes Bonus so it can afford the infrastructure that it needs for the new homes.”

He said there was concern about an application to develop houses in the Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

There were also worries about Devizes, where traffic pollution levels were already high., and a big campaign in Trowbridge over the A350 growth corridor.

“CPRE Wiltshire does not want to see homelessness and a lack of housing facilities for people, but it has to be appropriate and sustainable and not in areas which impinge on the countryside which is gradually drying up.” There is a lack of emphasis on brown field sites rather than green field sites.”

The leaked draft of the new planning blueprint says building firms will no longer have to focus on previously developed or brown field sites.

It will make it easier for developers to build homes, offices and retail parks in the Green Belt, and it will be harder for councils to extract planning gain concessions such as the provision of sports halls or community centres.

The document says: “A positive planning system is essential because, without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved.” This means the Government expects the planning system to proactively encourage growth to meet the needs of business.”

Stephen Joseph of the Campaign for Better Transport said: “From what we have seen, the new planning rules are a manifesto for sprawl and congestion. They would result in a lot more car-based developments with housing and offices in places without public transport and with links that will make it difficult, or actively dangerous, to walk and cycle around.”This will add to congestion on local roads and even on motorways.”

“The way that the document is written means that pretty much any development will get approved. Communities opposed to damaging developments will have to prove that it would breach the whole document, which is itself written in such a way as to make that a near impossible task. This means that even really terrible developments could be nodded through and communities will have no say in them.”

A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government said the reports were inaccurate and misleading. “The National Planning Policy Framework, which is due to be published shortly, will in no way weaken the Government's commitment to maintaining the Green Belt, and other environmental protections.”

"What the new framework will do is set out essential reform of the planning system to support the economic recovery and growth this country needs, while safeguarding and enhancing the environment.

"The framework will turn more than 1,000 pages of impenetrable planning policy into a set of coherent policies which will support the need to promote growth to deliver the homes and jobs people want without compromising the protection of the environment."

[Darkman]

If the policy is just to build more and more housing in response to increasing population due to uncontrolled immigration, there will be little left that is green in the south in only a few short years.

That's so wrong it's verging on propaganda.

Most "green land" is privately owned anyway, so you won't be seeing it.

[leicestersq]

Are you serious? If the UK population was increased to 100,000,000 we'd only need to use up an extra 1% of the UK's land. What is your V.I. in making such comments? Homeowner perhaps?

1% of the UK's land? Are we going to build a skyscraper 40 miles high?

I have heard that figure before, and I struggle to believe it. I look at London, which I guess contains 10 million people? When I look at it on the map, that seems to be a bit bigger than 1%. Multiply that by four, and it becomes a huge, massive area.

But worse, the amount of traffic and infrastructure you need to support those people just goes up as well. London cannot exist on its own, it needs to be supplied and communicate with the outside world. Building 4 more of them and you have more than 4 times the problem.

And lastly, all those homes need to be built in the South East. There was a discussion on here the other day about there being around 80 million people in the country, according to Tescos. Not sure if this figure is true or not, but they have been increasing their sales year after year, and I cant see how they could do that unless there are more people in the UK than the official estimates. I doubt if the ONS are on top of this one, after all they have every reason to look the other way.

Even official figures are suggesting the UK will increase its official population to 70 million plus by around 2025. That is a city just under the size of Birmingham that you need to build each year. I once heard a reply that you can just build them on the outskirts of other populated area. Well you can, but that pushes green areas away from everyone else, and it isnt long before one built up area ends up connecting with another.

I remember someone once posted a link on here to the video about geometric progression, here it is again.

It is well worth watching. If you think the solution is to build more, it isnt. All it provides is a quick shot of housing relief, at the expense of making the UK a bit less liveable, and that relief is only temporary. It is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed, and concreting over the south of England isnt the solution,

Edited July 5, 2011 by leicestersq

[leicestersq]

That's so wrong it's verging on propaganda.

Most "green land" is privately owned anyway, so you won't be seeing it.

Not wrong at all. Watch that You Tube video. I like that line where the lecturer says he "used to think 70 years was a long time, I dont think that anymore".

The rate at which the UK's population is now growing is frightening. It was around 500,000 increase last year officially wasnt it?

[leicestersq]

That's so wrong it's verging on propaganda.

Most "green land" is privately owned anyway, so you won't be seeing it.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Y7Z2ZDz7NoIJ:populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/population_problem_uk.pdf+uk+population+increase+graph&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjWwvOztDjLEZKCrUuH1m7aSTqo8SmAVcG6yypEj3ZyeqnxNrm5k7vrv_7V9zvllOT5D2oNEX41hq0aQ5g2aX4zo-qTF8uPj70LsnxBuVmu2CzXhuNUdMO4gN-2H7ci_BBfoCkC&sig=AHIEtbQE8QkXE914Q5obUgvtyQDoo4m3ew

AT 0.7% growth per year, in a few short years (end of this century), we would have 115 million people in the UK.

No problem?

[Riedquat]

The rate at which the UK's population is now growing is frightening. It was around 500,000 increase last year officially wasnt it?

The last time I looked the biggest increases were in the early and mid 20th century, and more recently the trend looked fairly linear. Scotland and Wales were pretty flat. But it becomes a problem sooner or later so best to stop it sooner (and it's already a bit of a problem IMO; a lower population would make for a pleasanter country, so there's nothing to be gained in the long run by increasing it).

That's so wrong it's verging on propaganda.

Most "green land" is privately owned anyway, so you won't be seeing it.

Most of it is quite easily visible from publically accesible locations. Quality of surroundings are affected by more than just the bits you can physically get to.

[Riedquat]

The rate at which the UK's population is now growing is frightening. It was around 500,000 increase last year officially wasnt it?

From people who will remain here permanently?

[Tired of Waiting]

That's so wrong it's verging on propaganda.

Most "green land" is privately owned anyway, so you won't be seeing it.

Only "verging"??? Jeeez you are polite.

[leicestersq]

From people who will remain here permanently?

Well if they arent remaining here permanently, what is the point of building the homes in the first place?

[Tired of Waiting]

(...)

AT 0.7% growth per year, in a few short years (end of this century), we would have 115 million people in the UK.

No problem?

Dear leicestersq,

If you are concerned with immigration, even you must admit that high house prices is not really a very effective way to stop them coming, right? I don't want to stereotype, but I think it is reasonable to estimate that they can live in much higher housing density than our FTBers would like, right? Around here (rural area) many eastern European immigrants share flats and even bedrooms, and have quite cheap housing.

So, if you want to campaign for more immigration controls, by all means, go for it. But please stop trying to hijack a thread on planning issues.

[libspero]

We have had this debate many a time.. there is no point trying to argue that any position is superior to another because ultimately it is a matter of personal choice.

Some people think we should have more people here, some people think it would be nicer with less.

Some people would like more urbanisation, some would prefer a return to ruralisation.

There is no right/wrong answer.. just personal preference.

The middle ground is perhaps to keep "ruralists" happy by better managing our population, and "urbanists" happy by building just enough additional infrastructure to better meet our current needs.

I think if both these criteria were met, 90% of people would be happy.

[silver surfer]

Are you serious? If the UK population was increased to 100,000,000 we'd only need to use up an extra 1% of the UK's land. What is your V.I. in making such comments? Homeowner perhaps?

So roughly four times the poulation that lives inside the M25 would take just 1% of UK land? That sounds a stretch, can you lay out the basis for your calculations.