http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3078500.stm

Thursday, 4 September, 2003

Illegal house extension demolished

The extension has been described as "hideous"
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...tension203.jpg

Workmen have finished demolishing an illegal house extension in Telford
after the owner was jailed for refusing to remove it.

Sylvester Nseowo was jailed for three months in August after he refused
to pull down the unauthorised extension he built to his house.

He has been pursued through the courts by Telford and Wrekin Council for
more than two years since building the addition to his home at Checkley
Lane, St Georges, without planning permission.

Terry Brooks, a structural engineer overseeing the demolition, described
the quality of work as "atrocious".

"There were no foundations to the columns (of the extension) so they
were very unsafe," he told BBC Radio Shropshire.

"We're now taking up the ground floor slabs which in places were about
two inches thick. Now normally on a house you have at least four to six
inches of concrete, quite often with reinforcements. But there were no
reinforcements."

Nseowo had already been given a three-month suspended sentence for
contempt of court at Stoke-on-Trent County Court in June, but was
allowed a month "to come to his senses".

Telford and Wrekin Council had gained a court injunction ordering that
the addition to the home must be pulled down, which led to Nseowo's
conviction in June for contempt of court.

He had also previously been fined £20,000 for ignoring orders to
demolish the extension, which planners have said was unsafe.

Nseowo's neighbours had expressed concern that the extension was
affecting the value of their homes.

Nseowo will be presented with the bill for the demolition work, which
took about two weeks to complete, when he is released from prison.

He is to appeal against his sentence on Thursday.
================================================== ================

Comment:
What a loon, but we are used to loons in uk.legal

I suspect we haven't seen the last of Mr Nseowo

Perhaps somebody should tell him you can't build a house extension in
the UK according to the Nigerian Building Regs. Or perhaps he didn't
bung the building inspector enough? (8-)

Mr J S Tinks

Comment:
What a loon, but we are used to loons in uk.legal

I suspect we haven't seen the last of Mr Nseowo

Perhaps somebody should tell him you can't build a house extension in
the UK according to the Nigerian Building Regs. Or perhaps he didn't
bung the building inspector enough? (8-)

Mr J S Tinks

On a parallel universe somewhere there is another Mr Nseowo who got away
with building his extension and then sold the house to an unsuspecting first
time buyer. Because the first time buyer couldn't afford a full survey the
surveryors report didn't pick up the faults to the extension. Six months
down the line, one of the columns collapses and kills three of the house
occupants when a supporting beam collapses under it's own weight and crushes
the occupants.

"Dudley" wrote in message
...
Comment:
What a loon, but we are used to loons in uk.legal

I suspect we haven't seen the last of Mr Nseowo

Perhaps somebody should tell him you can't build a house extension in
the UK according to the Nigerian Building Regs. Or perhaps he didn't
bung the building inspector enough? (8-)

Mr J S Tinks

On a parallel universe somewhere there is another Mr Nseowo who got away
with building his extension and then sold the house to an unsuspecting
first
time buyer. Because the first time buyer couldn't afford a full survey
the
surveryors report didn't pick up the faults to the extension. Six months
down the line, one of the columns collapses and kills three of the house
occupants when a supporting beam collapses under it's own weight and
crushes
the occupants.

Don't you mean "sold the house to a blind, unsuspecting first time buyer"?
It was quite obvious to anyone who saw it that it wasn't okay - since when
have columns been significantly off the vertical, and roofs been on a
serious slant?

D

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...

"Dudley" wrote in message
...
Comment:
What a loon, but we are used to loons in uk.legal

I suspect we haven't seen the last of Mr Nseowo

Perhaps somebody should tell him you can't build a house extension in
the UK according to the Nigerian Building Regs. Or perhaps he didn't
bung the building inspector enough? (8-)

Mr J S Tinks

On a parallel universe somewhere there is another Mr Nseowo who got away
with building his extension and then sold the house to an unsuspecting
first
time buyer. Because the first time buyer couldn't afford a full survey
the
surveryors report didn't pick up the faults to the extension. Six
months
down the line, one of the columns collapses and kills three of the house
occupants when a supporting beam collapses under it's own weight and
crushes
the occupants.

Don't you mean "sold the house to a blind, unsuspecting first time buyer"?
It was quite obvious to anyone who saw it that it wasn't okay - since when
have columns been significantly off the vertical, and roofs been on a
serious slant?

I have seen many grass roofs on a slant.

Mr Justice S Tinks wrote in message m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3078500.stm

Thursday, 4 September, 2003

Illegal house extension demolished

The extension has been described as "hideous"
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...tension203.jpg

SNIP

Isn't there a better photo; I can't see the extension in this one
because it seems to be obscured by a pile of builders rubbish... oh
wait a minute... I see what's happened here!!!

Mr Justice S Tinks wrote:

Hello Mr

MJST| Workmen have finished demolishing an illegal house extension
MJST| in Telford after the owner was jailed for refusing to remove
MJST| it.

Hurrah.

MJST| Nseowo will be presented with the bill for the demolition
MJST| work, which took about two weeks to complete, when he is
MJST| released from prison.

TWO WEEKS?

From the look of it, Simon and a sledgehammer could sort it out in an
hour, tea break included!

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK
uk.d-i-y FAQ: http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/

In article ,
(Simon Avery) writes:

MJST| Nseowo will be presented with the bill for the demolition
MJST| work, which took about two weeks to complete, when he is
MJST| released from prison.

TWO WEEKS?

From the look of it, Simon and a sledgehammer could sort it out in an
hour, tea break included!

Yea, but then it would be difficult to justify another bill
for x thousand pounds...

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Mr Justice S Tinks" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3078500.stm

Thursday, 4 September, 2003

Illegal house extension demolished

The extension has been described as "hideous"

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...tension203.jpg

Aren't there any better photos/plans/sketches than this?

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

nss wrote in message
...

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

Why not, do you think?

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 17:16:07 +0100, IMM wrote:


"Brian Delaney" wrote in message
...

nss wrote in message
...

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

Why not, do you think?

If it falls within the framework work of a "conservatory", then no planning
or building control is needed.

This may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant in the particular case
reported. The local planning authority had pursued this through the
courts.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:08:46 GMT, nss wrote


"Mr Justice S Tinks" wrote in
message ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3078500.stm

Thursday, 4 September, 2003

Illegal house extension demolished

The extension has been described as "hideous"

Aren't there any better photos/plans/sketches than this?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...9190458_extens
ion203.jpg

There's a better one on the Shropshire Star paper's website for
pictures to buy -- I don't know if this will link, but if not you can
reach it by searching on "Nseowo" on www.shropshirestarpix.com:

http://www.shropshirestarpix.com/pic...820&pager=1&ke
yword=

--
Cheers, Harvey

"Brian Delaney" wrote in message
...

nss wrote in message
...

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

Why not, do you think?

Well, for example,do you need such 'approval' or 'inspection' if you have
a pile of building-materials in your garden, or a 'work of art'?
Do you?
--
nss

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Brian Delaney" wrote in message
...

nss wrote in message
...

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

Why not, do you think?

If it falls within the framework work of a "conservatory", then no
planning
or building control is needed.
snip

Could someone in 'planning' or 'building-control' have made
a bit of a f***-up?
--
nss

"Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 17:16:07 +0100, IMM wrote:


"Brian Delaney" wrote in message
...

nss wrote in message
...

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

Why not, do you think?

If it falls within the framework work of a "conservatory", then no
planning
or building control is needed.

This may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant in the particular case
reported. The local planning authority had pursued this through the
courts.

Not subject, possibly, to Appeal now?
--
nss

x-no-archive: yes

nss wrote in message
...


Well, for example,do you need such 'approval' or 'inspection' if you have
a pile of building-materials in your garden, or a 'work of art'?
Do you?
--
nss

Course not. What's your point?
What we see in the photo is an extension in a state of
construction/deconstruction (not sure which), looks like it's attached to
the house, etc so it's an extension that is subject to building regulations
and to planning consent (subhject to size etc as earlier post). Maybe
someone from the Shropshire council can enlighten the group?

"nss" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Brian Delaney" wrote in message
...

nss wrote in message
...

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

Why not, do you think?

If it falls within the framework work of a "conservatory", then no
planning
or building control is needed.
snip

Could someone in 'planning' or 'building-control' have made
a bit of a f***-up?

Could have, but they can also get it demolished because it is unsafe once it
has been brought to their attention.


---
--

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

"nss" wrote in message
...
snip

Aren't there any better photos/plans/sketches than this?

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

ADDENDUM.

If the 'structure' or 'construction' was in any way 'unsafe'
as claimed, the HSE would have undoubtedly been on the
case.

Wouldn't they?
--
nss

nss wrote in message
...

Course not. What's your point?
I dunno......
What we see in the photo is an extension

No!
--
nss

OK - get off the line, there's a train coming.

"Louis Drysdale" wrote in message
...

nss wrote in message
...

Course not. What's your point?
I dunno......
What we see in the photo is an extension

No!
--
nss

OK - get off the line, there's a train coming.

Oh Goody,,,,let's hope it's a 'gravy-train' eh?
--
nss

In message , Louis
Drysdale writes
x-no-archive: yes

nss wrote in message
...


Well, for example,do you need such 'approval' or 'inspection' if you have
a pile of building-materials in your garden, or a 'work of art'?
Do you?
--
nss

Course not. What's your point?
What we see in the photo is an extension in a state of
construction/deconstruction (not sure which), looks like it's attached to
the house, etc so it's an extension that is subject to building regulations
and to planning consent (subhject to size etc as earlier post). Maybe
someone from the Shropshire council can enlighten the group?

Well Shropshire PA are a bit of a law unto themselves

I used to know someone who worked for them years ago he was a 100%
jobsworth. Someone had built a little log cabin up in the back of beyond
in the woods which they pulled down. I remember him telling me "You
can't have people building houses all over the place, it's just not on"

I remember where we lived, there were two similar extensions on similar
houses near where we lived (in Shrewsbury). One was built by someone who
worked for the council, the other by someone who didn't.

Take a guess which one stayed up and which one the council came round
and demolished

--
geoff

Not for a domestic exension, no. Or was a business being run there?

dg



"nss" wrote in message ...
"nss" wrote in message
...
snip

Aren't there any better photos/plans/sketches than this?

Despite what is being claimed, this 'structure' might not
actually have required any building regs or
planning approval.
--
nss

ADDENDUM.

If the 'structure' or 'construction' was in any way 'unsafe'
as claimed, the HSE would have undoubtedly been on the
case.

Wouldn't they?

In message , IMM
writes
I used to know someone who worked for them years ago he was a 100%
jobsworth. Someone had built a little log cabin up in the back of beyond
in the woods which they pulled down. I remember him telling me "You
can't have people building houses all over the place, it's just not on"

Sounds like an idiot.


You hit the nail on the head there John

--
geoff

IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Louis
Drysdale writes
x-no-archive: yes

nss wrote in message
...


Well, for example,do you need such 'approval' or 'inspection' if you
have
a pile of building-materials in your garden, or a 'work of art'?
Do you?
--
nss

Course not. What's your point?
What we see in the photo is an extension in a state of
construction/deconstruction (not sure which), looks like it's attached
to
the house, etc so it's an extension that is subject to building
regulations
and to planning consent (subhject to size etc as earlier post). Maybe
someone from the Shropshire council can enlighten the group?

Well Shropshire PA are a bit of a law unto themselves

I used to know someone who worked for them years ago he was a 100%
jobsworth. Someone had built a little log cabin up in the back of beyond
in the woods which they pulled down. I remember him telling me "You
can't have people building houses all over the place, it's just not on"

Sounds like an idiot. What is land for? Where are we supposed to live?
Suspended in mid-air?

There are planning laws so that people cannot build all over the countryside
without proper consideration. Just look at all the ribbon development that
took place before the Town & Country Planning Act.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

--
Mike Drew
Yate/Sodbury and Dodington Liberal Democrats
Lib Dem Councillor since 1983

"Mike Drew" wrote in message
...


IMM wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Louis
Drysdale writes
x-no-archive: yes

nss wrote in message
...


Well, for example,do you need such 'approval' or 'inspection' if
you
have
a pile of building-materials in your garden, or a 'work of art'?
Do you?
--
nss

Course not. What's your point?
What we see in the photo is an extension in a state of
construction/deconstruction (not sure which), looks like it's
attached
to
the house, etc so it's an extension that is subject to building
regulations
and to planning consent (subhject to size etc as earlier post).
Maybe
someone from the Shropshire council can enlighten the group?

Well Shropshire PA are a bit of a law unto themselves

I used to know someone who worked for them years ago he was a 100%
jobsworth. Someone had built a little log cabin up in the back of
beyond
in the woods which they pulled down. I remember him telling me "You
can't have people building houses all over the place, it's just not
on"

Sounds like an idiot. What is land for? Where are we supposed to live?
Suspended in mid-air?

There are planning laws so that people cannot build all over the
countryside
without proper consideration. Just look at all the ribbon development that
took place before the Town & Country Planning Act.

The town and country planning act was a tool for large landowners. It is
Stalinist. It has acted totally against the ordinary man. 2/3 of the price
of the average UK home is the land value. BTW, only 7,5% of the UK is built
on, rural and urban inc' gardens. We have the smallest and most expensive
homes in the western world. The UK has a "surplus" of land. See Who Owns
Britain by Kevin Cahill.

You appears to think that building well designed largish homes is bad.


---
--

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

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:15:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Pellatt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:03:50 +0100, IMM
wrote:

[ snip ]

BTW, only 7,5% of the UK is built on,
rural and urban inc' gardens.

But around 50% of the UK cannot be built
on due to its topography.....

???? 50% Do you mean the UK? The UK is a very flat. Have you ever driven
around it or flown over it? All you see is empty subsidised fields, travel
further, then all the houses are far too close together in a town, then more
open fields until the next town, and then the same again. Between towns
there is a hell of a lot of empty boring looking fields, with most owned by
a few people. 1% of the population own 70% of the land.

The UK has never redistributed land, unlike all other sensible countries,
although it started the redistribution of land in Ireland in the late 1800s,
which was complete a few years ago by an independent Ireland, with the Irish
Land Commission closed down for good. Job done.


Cue station jingle tape no. 23.......

..... or to put it another way, "Do you want the five minute argument,
or the full half hour?"

If any of the other listed newsgroups would like to borrow uk.d-i-y's
resident troll, I am sure that he would be pleased to oblige.
However, he's likely to want to discuss heat banks in uk.legal and
buying two cheap tools as an alternate to one good one in
uk.gov.local.






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:15:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Pellatt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:03:50 +0100, IMM
wrote:

[ snip ]

BTW, only 7,5% of the UK is built on,
rural and urban inc' gardens.

But around 50% of the UK cannot be built
on due to its topography.....

???? 50% Do you mean the UK? The UK is a very flat. Have you ever
driven
around it or flown over it? All you see is empty subsidised fields,
travel
further, then all the houses are far too close together in a town, then
more
open fields until the next town, and then the same again. Between towns
there is a hell of a lot of empty boring looking fields, with most owned
by
a few people. 1% of the population own 70% of the land.

The UK has never redistributed land, unlike all other sensible countries,
although it started the redistribution of land in Ireland in the late
1800s,
which was complete a few years ago by an independent Ireland, with the
Irish
Land Commission closed down for good. Job done.


Cue station jingle tape no. 23.......

.... or to put it another way, "Do you want the five minute argument,
or the full half hour?"

If any of the other listed newsgroups would like to borrow uk.d-i-y's
resident troll, I am sure that he would be pleased to oblige.
However, he's likely to want to discuss heat banks in uk.legal and
buying two cheap tools as an alternate to one good one in
uk.gov.local.

LOL. How witty they are in Sarf Landan.


---
--

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

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:57:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Cue station jingle tape no. 23.......

.... or to put it another way, "Do you want the five minute argument,
or the full half hour?"

If any of the other listed newsgroups would like to borrow uk.d-i-y's
resident troll, I am sure that he would be pleased to oblige.
However, he's likely to want to discuss heat banks in uk.legal and
buying two cheap tools as an alternate to one good one in
uk.gov.local.

LOL. How witty they are in Sarf Landan.

Are they?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:57:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Cue station jingle tape no. 23.......

.... or to put it another way, "Do you want the five minute argument,
or the full half hour?"

If any of the other listed newsgroups would like to borrow uk.d-i-y's
resident troll, I am sure that he would be pleased to oblige.
However, he's likely to want to discuss heat banks in uk.legal and
buying two cheap tools as an alternate to one good one in
uk.gov.local.

LOL. How witty they are in Sarf Landan.

Are they?

You must know Del-Boy


---
--

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

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!

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.sandymillport.fsnet.co.uk

"Mike Pellatt" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:15:44 +0100, IMM
wrote:

"Mike Pellatt" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:03:50 +0100, IMM
wrote:

[ snip ]

BTW, only 7,5% of the UK is built on,
rural and urban inc' gardens.

But around 50% of the UK cannot be built
on due to its topography.....

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

Yes. The answer, in two words, is Scotland and Wales. They aren't quite
so flat.

House van still be built on the vast majority of the land, even national
parks.

In particular Scotland, which has a far greater land area then
you might imagine.

[ snip further points that are not relevant to the one I am
arguing ]

You don't have an argument. You said that 50% of the UK "cannot" be built
on, which is total stupidity. Taking your argument Switzerland would not
exist.

You said "around 50% of the UK cannot be built on due to its topography".
What facts do you have to support this deep faith.



---
--

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

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a The town and country planning act was a tool for large landowners.

Large land owners don't need planning regulations, they
_own_the_land_. If they don't want houses built on it they
_just_don't_build_them_.

a It is Stalinist.

This from someone advocating forced collectivisation?

--
Mail me as _O_
|

"Sandy Morton" wrote in message
...
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!

IT must be. My UK is the one between the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.


---
--

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

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a The town and country planning act was a tool for large landowners.

Large land owners don't need planning regulations, they
_own_the_land_. If they don't want houses built on it they
_just_don't_build_them_.

a It is Stalinist.

This from someone advocating forced collectivisation?

It isn't.


---
--

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

"Andy Mabbett" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes
The town and country planning act was a tool for large landowners. It
is Stalinist.

Yup, that's the thing about "large landowners" (sic) - they're
Stalinists, to man.

They are? I thought only the 1947 T&C Planning act was Stalinist.


---
--

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

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a It is Stalinist.

This from someone advocating forced collectivisation?

a It isn't.

Please ask your other peronality to post, we were talking to him.


--
Mail me as _O_
|

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.

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote in message
s.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.

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.


---
--

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

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a It is Stalinist.

This from someone advocating forced collectivisation?

a It isn't.

Please ask your other peronality to post, we were talking to him.

You are a very confused person.


---
--

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

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).

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?

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.

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"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