"David" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"David" wrote stuff in message
. ..
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

But the planning system herds us all into
dense towns and cities. preventing
the sales. Nevertheless the large
landowners will not sell up, or very
little of the land they own. They never
have and never will. They have to
be forced in some way, and LVT will
dwindle their stranglehold on the land
to greater good of us all.

"contrary to popular belief, we are not
living on a crowded and urbanised
island, but only in crowded and extremely
dense cities."

Only because people want to John,

Bertie, they don't. Currently you
don't have a choice. We are crowded into
urban areas. Read the links to the
documents Tony and I gave.

Given a free choice people will drive
just out of town until they find a
clear space and then build a house on it,

Bertie, some will.

it will mean all the large
cities and towns will just get
larger, most folk don't want to live in
the country they want to live in
towns and cities or on the edge of them

Bertie stop guessing, as yiou are a bad guessser. Read the documents.

"Our rigid and nationalised planning system is also delivering the wrong
kind of housing. In a March 2005 MORI poll, 50 per cent of those
questioned
favoured a detached house and 22 per cent a bungalow. Just 2 per cent
wanted
a low rise flat and 1 per cent a flat in a high rise block. But houses and
bungalows use more land, so while in 1990 about an eighth of newly built
dwellings were apartments, by 2004 this had increased to just under a
half."

"Our housing compares poorly by international standards too. Britain has
some of the smallest and oldest housing in Europe, and what is being built
now is even smaller than the existing stock. Yet despite this, house
prices in the UK have risen much more strongly than other developed
countries, meaning that despite real growth in our incomes we are not able
to afford more and better housing, in the way that we can afford better
cars
and food as we get wealthier."

"Recent research into the impact of increased urban densities concluded
that
'urban compaction' results in a loss of urban environmental quality and
'questioned whether the loss of environmental quality and urban character
in
low density housing areas is a price worth paying'. To put those questions
more directly than academic researchers might do: do we want gardens to be
more and more expensive and, eventually, built over? Do we want the few
low
density urban conservation areas we
have to be destroyed in order to preserve a few acres of countryside that
few can visit? Do we want the whole of every urban area to be covered in
tarmac? Should we not keep some trees in urban areas? Do we want playing
fields to gradually disappear as being uneconomic, given the price of
land?
Do we want future generations to live walled up in urban areas in blocks
of
flats? Do we want biodiversity to be reduced as the scientific evidence
shows that it would be?"

Most city folk just want a weekend cottage out of town.

And why not, we have an abundance of space for it, and it will create jobs
in country areas.

I believe in releasing more land for housing
but not just so that people can build/buy
houses as a second home,

Why not? What is wrong with that?

As far as I'm
concerned any thing after your main
residence should be taxed to the hilt.

Why? What harm is a nice house in the country doing? Bertie Read the
documents. Don't make things up.