What Will Happen Once We've Concreted Over the Land?

[itsnotmeitsu]

I can't sleep because of the noisy rumbling of construction, and it's nearly one in the morning. I'm slightly set back from the road, so god knows what it's like for those directly on the road.

I live in a house that's bordered by an ex-school playing field which has around 143 properties being built on it and, on the other side, an area which previously housed a bungalow now has nine properties being built on it.

We will never be able to get the original environment back that the developers are being allowed to build on. I just hope the wildlife I sustain will be able to survive. I'll miss them very much if they go.

We already have hotels. No need to build more en masse.

There clearly would be if you removed all the holiday homes, though.

@Hardbackwriter

We already have hotels. No need to build more en masse.

There clearly would be if you removed all the holiday homes, though.

I refer you to my other points and posts.

One issue rarely mentioned is the huge percentage upshoot of single occupier households. This is due to an ageing population and alosm people not remaining as couples. It was something like 10% in the 1970’s but is now close to 30%. I live in a row of quite big three bed houses with bigger than average gardens built in the 1920’s, there are eight of them. Three of them are currently occupied by one person, it was four until a few months ago.

There are currently two quite big housing developments being built in my town. One is on the site of a demolished factory. It’s a huge site and 150 homes are being built. The other Was a big pub that had a very large car park, about 30 homes are being built there, that’s an excellent use of brownfield sites.

What, your plan that people just don't have holidays any more? I don't think it's a goer politically, to be honest. And I'm not sure how grateful local people in current destinations will be that you've given them back 'their' housing stock, but completely obliterated the main source of employment.

@LucentBlade that makes people very uncomfortable.

@Hardbackwriter

What, your plan that people just don't have holidays any more? I don't think it's a goer politically, to be honest. And I'm not sure how grateful local people in current destinations will be that you've given them back 'their' housing stock, but completely obliterated the main source of employment.

No, that people holiday less.

Mass tourism does indeed hollow out and destroy economies and make them reliant on it. If more people can afford to actually live in the area and bring their work with them we should be able to see a proper revival of tourist towns with thriving established communities, not a facade full of transient workers and visitors which is devoid of people come November.

And I'm not sure how grateful local people in current destinations will be that you've given them back 'their' housing stock, but completely obliterated the main source of employment.

There are probably just as many locals who are frustrating by being priced out or having too many holidaymakers in their areas. There was loads of threads over the pandemic along these lines.

People probably thought that about the space where your house now stands.

Whaaaaaaat on earth are they doing building work at 1am?! Have you reported them to the council? That’s illegal.

That was my first thought too @Skysblue.
Report it to the council @itsnotmeitsu.

@itsnotmeitsu only 1% of the U.K. is built on at the moment
England is slightly more dense at 2%
So we have a long way before we've concreted over all the land.
It's the same when people say "the U.K. is full" it's really not
There are issues with poor allocation and distribution of resources but not really that there isn't enough space.

[quote wonkylegs]@itsnotmeitsu only 1% of the U.K. is built on at the moment
England is slightly more dense at 2%
So we have a long way before we've concreted over all the land.
It's the same when people say "the U.K. is full" it's really not
There are issues with poor allocation and distribution of resources but not really that there isn't enough space. [/quote]
This is false. Urban areas take up 6% of UK land in total.

www.mperryassociates.com/blog/buildings-in-britain/amp/

And remember, the remaining 94% is in the main either not suitable for building or vital for food production.

We don't have 94% of the country available to expand into.

[quote wonkylegs]@itsnotmeitsu only 1% of the U.K. is built on at the moment
England is slightly more dense at 2%
So we have a long way before we've concreted over all the land.
It's the same when people say "the U.K. is full" it's really not
There are issues with poor allocation and distribution of resources but not really that there isn't enough space. [/quote]
As I said, the situation in the regions is very different. I’m sure in North Yorkshire there is less overbuilding than there is in the SE.

What do we want? Housing!
When do we want it? When it's somewhere else!

The field behind my house is going to have 100 houses built on it. The field is the only area of unimproved, ungrazed grassland around here and supports a lot of wildlife, including barn owl, skylark, kestrels and occasional grasshopper warblers. There is no local support for this development, the local councillors turned it down but the foreign investment company who own the land appealed and were granted permission, because of this government's planning policies in favour of any development. In our town there are derelict buildings all over the place, there's a huge derelict pub near here just being left to rot. The planners are still trying to get the developers to pay towards school provision and the doctors surgery which is at capacity, but they are trying their best to present counter arguments as to why they're not required to do this. The houses they are going to build are tiny compared to the older housing stock. This development is only going to benefit the developers bank balance and there's nothing people who live here can do about it. I suppose you could say that the environment impacts can be mitigated, unlike with HS2 where ancient woodlands are being destroyed and can't easily be recreated. We do need more housing stock, but why leave so many existing houses derelict in favour of building houses on valuable green space?

@CazY777

The field behind my house is going to have 100 houses built on it. The field is the only area of unimproved, ungrazed grassland around here and supports a lot of wildlife, including barn owl, skylark, kestrels and occasional grasshopper warblers. There is no local support for this development, the local councillors turned it down but the foreign investment company who own the land appealed and were granted permission, because of this government's planning policies in favour of any development. In our town there are derelict buildings all over the place, there's a huge derelict pub near here just being left to rot. The planners are still trying to get the developers to pay towards school provision and the doctors surgery which is at capacity, but they are trying their best to present counter arguments as to why they're not required to do this. The houses they are going to build are tiny compared to the older housing stock. This development is only going to benefit the developers bank balance and there's nothing people who live here can do about it. I suppose you could say that the environment impacts can be mitigated, unlike with HS2 where ancient woodlands are being destroyed and can't easily be recreated. We do need more housing stock, but why leave so many existing houses derelict in favour of building houses on valuable green space?

Least your local councillors are doing something about it. I think ours just take baths in the money they get from building companies, and whenever thet get suggestions for improvements, they either use them as toilet paper or do the exact opposite.

As I said, the situation in the regions is very different. I’m sure in North Yorkshire there is less overbuilding than there is in the SE.

As Lockheart says, there is more to building than purely providing shelter. All the people need to have rather more land available to survive economically. It is strange how this needs stating again and again given that it has been the case for all living beings throughout the earth’s history! Territory=resources, resources=better chances of survival.
Overpopulation in Britain is already very real. The economies within the country are hopelessly mid-matched too. Redistribution is not a simple matter, nor the only part of the problem.

Oh I’m not arguing for overbuilding in North Yorkshire.

I just get fed up of the trotting-out of a blanket figure for development in the UK that doesn’t account for the fact that much of it couldn’t house lots of people so development falls into certain areas.

I nearly bought a house right up a dale. Lots of land there, but not suitable for a 6000-house estate. Which is what we have in our small market town in a formerly rural southern county. And they think it’s such a good idea they want to build even more large estates.

That makes more sense!