"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:45:58 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Cynic" wrote in message
ws.com...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:11:24 +0100, Sandy Morton
wrote:

In article , IMM

wrote:
???? 50% Do you mean the UK? The UK is a very flat. Have you ever
driven around it or flown over it?

I think that you are looking at a different country from my UK!

No. Having flown over much of the UK, I can confirm that the majority
is pretty flat, with some exceptional areas in parts of Wales and
Scotland. I can also confirm that the vast majority is open fields
and woodland.

I would be extemely surprised if as much as 10% was impossible to
build on due to topography.

Obviously the major road systems run between villages, towns and
cities, which gives the car driver an incorrect perception of the
ratio between open space and built-up areas.

Very astute observation and very correct. Get off the A roads and onto
the
back B roads and tracks and only the odd falling down barn you see. Get
out
and walk and sometimes you are lucky to see the odd building. The UK is
very open and unbuilt upon country.

True (and some of us like living in the more "open and unbuilt upon"
parts).

And that is true.

I would be extremely surprised if 3-4% was impossible to build on due to
topography. After all the highest mountain in Wales has a railway
running
up to the top.

How many people, though, would want to live at the top of the highest
mountain in Wales?

Put executive hillside homes with dramatic views and they will be lining up
my boy. Lining up. With modern communications you don't need to be right
in the work place any more. That is a point the 1947 T&C planning act does
not address and curtails advancement.

Even if the UK's planning laws were revolutionized,
I imagine that the results would be even greater
concentrations of population - for example, every
piece of open land within easy commuting distance of
London (and Manchester, and B'ham, and ...) would be built on.

The "urban spawl" propaganda emotive statements again. I doubt that would
happen at all. The drift away from major urban centres is still going on in
the UK. The UK was the first to concentrate the population in urban centres
the Industrial Revolution and the first to de-urbanise after WW2. This
process is still going on. For example, Liverpool was about 1 million strong
just after WW2, it is now about 550,000. Virtually all other cities have
seen the same population reductions too, including London.

People want easy access to open spaces, space immediately around them and
easy access to facilities. Many, mainly those without families, want to be
out in the fields and woods. the problem is they won't let you build on
subsidised open fields that only contribute 3% to the economy. people
actually want to be a part of the countryside, but that are prevented from
doing so.

As only 7.5% of the UKs land mass is built on, urban and rural, then if the
urban footprint was doubled, that is still only 15% of the land mass. The
likelihood of reaching 10% is very slim, never mind 15%.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003