Thursday, November 4, 2010

Lots of lovely data on land use

Land Use Futures - scientific evidence

As a follow up to Mark Wadsworth's 'Britain is NOT a crowded island' post yesterday, I thought I'd repost this series reports as they have added new papers and articles. Lots of reading but excellent data and analysis - erm and land

Posted by powerofnow @ 09:38 AM (1111 views)
Please complete the required fields.



16 thoughts on “Lots of lovely data on land use

  • can anyone who has read this find the actual amount of land in uk actually buit on?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Thanks. The reports appear to be full of waffle, but more statistics is always good.

    Most of the debate about housing, banking, taxation, immigration, legalising drugs (or to be honest, anything at all) is based on absolutely no grasp of cold hard facts whatsoever.

    It’s like the Mail wailing about “6,000 acres of greenbelt being lost over a decade” when this equates to about one per cent of one per cent of the UK by surface area.

    Or the idea that QE “puts money into the economy”.

    Or the ridiculous notion that “Value Added Tax does not affect the producer/supplier/employer”.

    Or indeed the fact that possession of cannabis can be punished with six months in prison (I think). There are four million occasional/regulat cannabis smokers in the UK, are we seriously proposing building four million prison cells? I think not.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Taffee, if you include gardens it’s about six and a half per cent. if you exclude gardens, it’s about three and a half per cent.

    See my post of yesterday evening.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • thanks…great post with links saved for lazy afternoon!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • checked it out…great post that really show the b*llsh*t we have been fed

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • MW, where did you get your 6.5% figure from? The figure I read from the report is that 90% of England is undeveloped, meaning that the remaining 10% is built on. Of this, 2.5% is transport infrastructure, but as new houses would need new roads & paths, it seems fair to include it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Orcus – in England it’s 9.9%, but Taffee asked about the UK (GB and NI), because England is just over half by area but 85% by population if you adjust developed figures for whole of UK, it must be about six and a half per cent.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • MW – Seems like you’re guilty of fiddling your statistics! Land may be plentiful up in northern Scotland, but jobs are not.

    I want to live where the work is, so I’m most interested in the figures for South East England.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • MW – I semi-retract that. Not fiddling your statistics, but misleading with them. Which is what statistics are for!

    Of course, plans to move jobs to where the new housing is to go would be good. Have the regional development agencies done any good and aren’t they going to be scrapped?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Orcus, do we really want a Stalinist economy where jobs are moved to where workers are or vice versa?

    Replace taxes with LVT and everything will find its own level – it’ll be much cheaper doing business in cheaper areas and vice versa, plus, the Citizen’s Income (the flipside of LVT) will be worth more in spending power terms in cheaper areas (i.e. with lower employment).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • MW – I’m all in favour of LVT and Citizen’s income, but in this case it would work in opposition to what we want.

    Currently, land is relatively cheap in the nether regions of the UK, and this wouldn’t change under LVT, so the cheap land cost incentive to develop is already there. However, once developed, the LVT for an area will rise, providing a dis-incentive.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Orcus, quite simply, LVT/CI turns the state-enforced quasi monopoly of land ownership back into a free market.

    It “pipes sunshine around the country” so wealth will tend to be far more evenly spread, even though infrastructure quite clearly isn’t and never will be. Instead of all the gains from infrastructure improvement or technological progress being soaked up by owners of land and buildings (including owner-occupiers) in the selected areas, it would recapture that and dish out – in effect, we’d all be landowners to 1/62 millionth of what’s there.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • On page 60 of the final report is some very interesting research on public perception of how much land is developed in the UK….

    There is evidence that most people think that Britain is more urbanised than it is.
    This was examined for the Barker Report, using figures from a MORI survey based on
    interviews with 1,724 adults. The full question read: ‘“Developed land” (broadly, land
    which has been built upon) is defined as land in towns, cities and villages (including
    gardens but excluding parks) and all additional land used for infrastructure such as
    roads, paths and rail. What proportion of land in England do you think is developed?’
    The question equates to the percentage of land occupied by the first seven GLUD
    categories in Table 2.2, which adds up to 9.95% of land cover. In comparison the survey
    showed that the public considered the level of development to be much higher, as
    shown in Figure 2.3, with only 13% believing that less than a quarter of the land in
    England is developed and over 30% believing that more than half is developed.

    It was suggested75 that this misperception may be caused by most of the population
    living in towns, and by the fact that when people travel between towns they travel
    relatively rapidly, but they move more slowly within built-up areas and so perceive
    urban areas as being bigger. In responding to the Barker Report the CPRE76 pointed
    out that the figures could suggest that people think that very little of the country is
    unspoilt or that development has already reached desirable – or even tolerable – limits.
    It is also apparent77 that a proportion of the population do not visit rural areas at all,
    or do so only infrequently; so many people will only be exposed to urbanised
    environments and therefore inevitably think that high proportions of the country are
    developed.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    PON, I ran a Fun Online Poll on that very topic (here and on my blog) and I’m happy to say that 66% guessed correctly at only 10% developed. Only 13% guessed 50% or more. It’s a question about spreading the word/the facts.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • If you want to know land use stats for any particular area or town in England, the following link takes you to a spreadsheet on the C&LG website. It’s from 2005 but very useful nonetheless.

    I’ve had a tweak with a copy I have saved for myself to show overall totals and percentages and it brings up the following:

    Area of Domestic Buildings: 1,508M m2 (1.14%)
    Area of Domestic Gardens: 5,645M m2 (4.27%)
    Area of Non Domestic Buildings: 869M m2 (0.66%)
    Area of Road: 2,950M m2 (2.23%)
    Area of Rail: 179M m2 (0.14%)
    Area of Path: 143M m2 (0.11%)
    Area of Greenspace: 115,742M m2 (87.47%)
    Area of Water: 3,436M m2 (2.60%)
    Area of Other Land Uses: 1,850M m2 (1.40%)
    Area of Unclassified Land: 2M m2 (0.00%)
    Total Area of All Land Types: 132,324M m2 (100.00%)

    Here’s the link:
    http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/xls/154329.xls

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Ooops…just realised there was a blog already posted about this on Wednesday!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>