"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
He didn't mention using the entire ball park.

Just the centre circle?

The penalty area should be enough for most people, giving enough for a
reasonable sized garden.

John Prescott will insist on not less than twelve dwelling
per acre - and that they all vote yes in a postal ballot for a
Regional Assembly. Reasonable sized gardens will not
be given planning permission.

--

Brian

Andy Hall wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:21:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:02:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



There are millions of SIP homes in north American in climates similar to
ours with vermin more prone to attack if, it attacks it at all. They are
all brilliant and have been there for decades.

Really? Without exception? Like the ones in Juneau?

This is a classic case of mentalism taking hold. This is sad to see in front
of your very eyes.


What's next month's catchphrase going to be?


Prescottdigitation?

(or how to make industrial output figures appear from empty promises)



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:59:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:21:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:02:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



There are millions of SIP homes in north American in climates similar to
ours with vermin more prone to attack if, it attacks it at all. They are
all brilliant and have been there for decades.

Really? Without exception? Like the ones in Juneau?

This is a classic case of mentalism taking hold. This is sad to see in front
of your very eyes.


What's next month's catchphrase going to be?


Prescottdigitation?

(or how to make industrial output figures appear from empty promises)


I think that the correct term would be Prescottanalpollicis

(Pollicis, latin genitive - of the thumb)


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:59:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:21:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:02:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



There are millions of SIP homes in north American in climates similar
to
ours with vermin more prone to attack if, it attacks it at all. They
are
all brilliant and have been there for decades.

Really? Without exception? Like the ones in Juneau?

This is a classic case of mentalism taking hold. This is sad to see in
front
of your very eyes.


What's next month's catchphrase going to be?


Prescottdigitation?

(or how to make industrial output figures appear from empty promises)


I think that the correct term would be Prescottanalpollicis

(Pollicis, latin genitive - of the thumb)

.....cor......

John Prescott will insist on not less than twelve dwelling
per acre - and that they all vote yes in a postal ballot for a
Regional Assembly. Reasonable sized gardens will not
be given planning permission.

Well, I admit my house's plot isn't much bigger than the 6 yard box in area!

Christian.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:43:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:



Thanks for the tips about the foundations, etc. But I'm not in the
slightest bit interested in SIPs, straw bales, that kind of thing. To
me a house is a house that is built like a brick outhouse, end of
story. Bricks, mortar, windows, a chimney, and a fireplace. Simple. I
don't care if it's a bit draughty.

You may not, but the BCO will.

Stuff 'em! I'll open a window as soon as they've left.

Nice cavity insulated rendered basic concrete block house with decent
tiles on eh?

Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered, ta all
the same! Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue tiles you see
on some new builds in Germany. Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the Germans? I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs! My late sister's house is a fantastic property, but you'd
never see one like it in Britain, except at an exhibition, perhaps. It
has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.
Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement! You've
paid for the plot, so why not exploit its full potential? Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs! And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

Do put in underfloor heating tho.

Absolutely out of the question. I hate underfloor heating. It feels
like the downstairs is on fire. When I stand at a bathroom sink having
a shave, the floor tiles are *supposed* to be cold! Warm tiles feel
like you've wet yourself. Horrid, horrid, HORRID!

and amins preessure hot water system, not one of those fashionable
religious icons - combis.

Dunno about heating. As long as the water gets piping hot once a day
for my bath and the washing up and it is cheap, I don't care if I feed
it with IMM's straw bales. I definitely would look at recovering heat
from the ground and at solar panels, though. Again, take solar panels.
A bungalow near me has them on the roof. They look an absolutely
eyesore! Why cannot designers at least try to make new gadgets
visually appealing?


And chinmeys and a real fire place.

Absolutely! There's nothing like a roaring log fire, a glass of wine,
and a prawn cocktail with a squeeze of lemon to finish the day very
nicely indeed.

MM

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:59:58 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

Whether there is serious damp or not is usually a moot point. If you are
going to walk away from a house with some damp, (or even knock them down
to rebuild), you will probably be walking away from a lot of houses.

That is interesting, too. I think we do tend to get carried away by
horror stories we read about or see on the telly. I cannot believe
that a house that has stood for a good 150 years (in the meantime the
estimate has risen to 200 years, having spoken again to the agent!)
can be beyond redemption, even if it does need a "bit of work" done to
it (the agent's comments). Certainly, the houses I grew up in, lacking
central heating and only having a fire in the sitting room, and only
*then* if dad or mum had laid one, even in the depths of winter, were
always damp and cold, yet we were healthy kids! Our warmth came from
within, as Dad would admonish us, "Eat up your fat, it's good for
you!", whether it was bacon, lamb, or beef.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:43:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:



Thanks for the tips about the foundations, etc. But I'm not in the
slightest bit interested in SIPs, straw bales, that kind of thing. To
me a house is a house that is built like a brick outhouse, end of
story. Bricks, mortar, windows, a chimney, and a fireplace. Simple. I
don't care if it's a bit draughty.

You may not, but the BCO will.

Stuff 'em! I'll open a window as soon as they've left.

Nice cavity insulated rendered basic concrete block house with decent
tiles on eh?

Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered, ta all
the same!

Oh my God! How awful.

Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue tiles you see
on some new builds in Germany.

Nice tiles. I like em.

Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the
Germans? I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties,

Do you mean one of these:
http://www.huf-haus.de/de/_ds351440855

but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs!

Do you means one that gobble up gas and give big bills? How awful.

My late sister's house is a fantastic property, but you'd
never see one like it in Britain, except at an exhibition, perhaps. It
has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.
Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement! You've
paid for the plot, so why not exploit its full potential?

They will only allow a certain amount of living area on the plot. In this
country they seem to class a utility basement as living space, as probably
immigrants can live down there.

Drive around
any German suburb and see so many
fantastic designs! And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just
ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying
for quality, and getting it.

Blame the 1947 T&C planning act.

Do put in underfloor heating tho.

Absolutely out of the question. I hate underfloor heating. It feels
like the downstairs is on fire. When I stand at a bathroom sink having
a shave, the floor tiles are *supposed* to be cold! Warm tiles feel
like you've wet yourself. Horrid, horrid, HORRID!

and amins preessure hot water system, not one of those fashionable
religious icons - combis.

Dunno about heating. As long as the water gets piping hot once a day
for my bath and the washing up and it is cheap, I don't care if I feed
it with IMM's straw bales. I definitely would look at recovering heat
from the ground

Heat pumps are financially not worth it is ng is available.

and at solar panels,

Good idea.

though. Again, take solar panels.
A bungalow near me has them on the roof.
They look an absolutely
eyesore! Why cannot designers at least try
to make new gadgets
visually appealing?

If the whole roof was glass it would look very good.

And chinmeys and a real fire place.

Absolutely!

How appalling. I agree with the wine and sherry though.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:12:07 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:43:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:



Thanks for the tips about the foundations, etc. But I'm not in the
slightest bit interested in SIPs, straw bales, that kind of thing. To
me a house is a house that is built like a brick outhouse, end of
story. Bricks, mortar, windows, a chimney, and a fireplace. Simple. I
don't care if it's a bit draughty.

You may not, but the BCO will.

Stuff 'em! I'll open a window as soon as they've left.

Nice cavity insulated rendered basic concrete block house with decent
tiles on eh?

Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered, ta all
the same! Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue tiles you see
on some new builds in Germany. Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the Germans?

Why indeed. Most that I've seen recently are being constructed with
bricks and blocks with insulation in between.

I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs! My late sister's house is a fantastic property, but you'd
never see one like it in Britain, except at an exhibition, perhaps. It
has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.

Yes, and useful they are as well, same story in France, although they
have specific things to store in the "cave".

Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement! You've
paid for the plot, so why not exploit its full potential? Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs! And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

... and seemingly they do as well.



Do put in underfloor heating tho.

Absolutely out of the question. I hate underfloor heating. It feels
like the downstairs is on fire. When I stand at a bathroom sink having
a shave, the floor tiles are *supposed* to be cold! Warm tiles feel
like you've wet yourself. Horrid, horrid, HORRID!

and amins preessure hot water system, not one of those fashionable
religious icons - combis.

Dunno about heating. As long as the water gets piping hot once a day
for my bath and the washing up and it is cheap, I don't care if I feed
it with IMM's straw bales. I definitely would look at recovering heat
from the ground and at solar panels, though. Again, take solar panels.
A bungalow near me has them on the roof. They look an absolutely
eyesore! Why cannot designers at least try to make new gadgets
visually appealing?


And chinmeys and a real fire place.

Absolutely! There's nothing like a roaring log fire, a glass of wine,
and a prawn cocktail with a squeeze of lemon to finish the day very
nicely indeed.

In Germany they have Black Forest Gateau as well :-)




MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the
Germans?

Here is why....

AN OBJECTIVE VIEW OF LAND IN THE UK

The UK has a very big problem that lies at the root of many of its problems;
it is the usage and ownership of "land". Most people are not aware that
land is a big problem that affects just about every man, woman and child in
the UK. This problem has been effectively suppressed.

PROBLEMS

The value of land accounts for 2/3 of the value of the average home in the
UK - a very big problem.

Some points relating to high land prices:

a) House Prices Are Far Too High - The people of the UK pay very high
prices for very small high density homes. Very few people realise this.
High land values cascading into house prices means both parents of homes in
the vast majority of families need to work to pay mortgages to keep a very
small roof over their heads. Only about 8% of UK families have the wife at
home full time. This results in the latch-key kids, who all too often end
up as delinquents and in trouble. Vandalism and graffiti is rife in the UK
giving the country a very poor image.

b) People Priced Out of Housing Market - The problem of land is
surfacing in parts of the country where people with low incomes and in some
cases not so low, are being priced out of the housing market. Many cannot
afford to live in the towns, villages and city districts where they were
born and brought up, having to leave splitting family groups. Many of these
towns and villages are surrounded by low grade land which lays idle through
public subsidy. Small builders and individual selfbuilders are eager to
build on this land to fill the local housing gap, however they are prevented
from doing so.

This artificial shortage of available building land reduces home ownership.
Home ownership in the UK is at 68% which is lower than Spain, Finland,
Ireland, Greece, Australia and New Zealand and very close to rates in Italy,
Portugal and Luxembourg.

The land is not serving the people. Not only that, it financially penalises
the people.

c) Consumer Debt Is Mainly Mortgages - The media is full of tales of
high consumer debt in the UK, yet few state that 80% is actually mortgages,
not debt for luxury goods, giving the impression the people of the UK are
financially reckless and decadent. In short, people pay extortionate
amounts for a tiny roof to keep them warm and dry.

d) High Land Prices Discourage Commerce and Industry - High land prices
result in high rents, which are passed onto commerce and industry. Many
foreign investors and companies have been discouraged from establishing in
the UK because of extortionate rents.

e) People Prevented From Building Affordable Homes - Preventing people
from building affordable homes in the countryside forces them into urban
areas where many will be given publicly owned or subsidised homes, paid for
from our taxes. We pay from public money, which could be better spend on
needy projects, to house people who would otherwise pay for and build their
own homes. This is obviously a ludicrous situation. This ridiculous
situation uses taxpayes money keeps land idle and then to house people.
Better use can be made of public money.


f) Land Is at Root of Traveller Problems - Approximately 300,000 people
the UK travel the roads in caravans, effectively homeless. Some traveller
societies, mainly the original Gypsies, have deep routes and traditions of
travelling, most do not. Many have become a nuisance to the wider society
and are firmly unwanted and unwelcome wherever they set up camp. The root
cause that initially forced theses people onto the roads was access to land
to live on. The Irish travelling communities originated when Ireland's land
was owned by a handful of people who forced these people off the land they
lived on. Many of the travellers in the UK originate from Ireland. Most
traveller families want a permanent place to live. The evictions of
Travellers caravans from land they actually own when attempting a permanent
settlement clearly demonstrates this. If travellers were allowed to build
permanent homes the problem would be alleviated.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of much child and teenage
vandalism, however very true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of forcing people out of their
home towns and villages, splitting up families, however very true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of disrupted families, however
very true.

- Strange that land can discourage business and growth, however very true.

- Strange that land accounts for vast profits by financial institutions
lending money for homes with inflated prices, however very true.

- Strange in that land increases our tax burden on subsidised homes, however
very true.

- Strange in that land created, and maintains, the problem of the
travellers, however very true.

The above is all very true.

Contrary to popular belief, the UK has approximately only 7% of its land
built on. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK actually
has a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the south east of
England, only 7.1% is built on with the Home Counties being underpopulated.
The North West of England is highest at 9.9% built upon.

Question 1. So why does land account for 2/3 of the value of the average
home, with all the negative spins offs, if we have all this land available?

Quite simply, the deliberate creation of an artificial land shortage, which
ramps up land prices.

Question 2. What creates this artificial land shortage?

The 1947 Town and Country Planning act, introduced by a "Labour" government,
that promised land reform during the 1945 general election, keeps people in
small isolated highly dense pockets of land in urban areas. Foolishly the
Labour government allowed the Council for the Protection of Rural England
(CPRE) to be heavily involved in drafting the act. CPRE was formed by large
landowners. They influenced the act to suit themselves. The naïve Labour
administration at the time accepted their input. Over 90% of the
population, the second highest in Europe, now live in urbanised areas
leaving the countryside virtually empty, because of this ridiculous act.
This crams near 55 million people into 7.5% of the land, which is only 4.5
million acres out of a UK total of 60 million acres. 60 million people own
just 6% of the land.

The act prevents us from building on the countryside, even though much of it
is being paid for by taxpayers money to remain idle. The people of the UK
are forced into tight urban pockets paying extortionate prices for land, and
subsequently houses, with their taxes used to reinforce this bizarre
situation. This adds insult to injury. A contemptuous slap in the face.

Question 3. Who are the biggest benefactors of this artificial land
shortage?

a) Primarily Large Landowners.

The ludicrously small figure of 0.65% of the UK population own 68.3% of the
land, many are aristocratic families dating back many hundreds years.
Despite propaganda stating that the British aristocracy is poverty stricken
and exists no more, they have managed to hang on to their lucrative acres
very well, and in many cases expand their empires.

The root of this situation came about from the Norman conquest. They gave
land to people who were favourable to them. In short, many of these
families were traitors to their own kind conspiring with invaders. The
Saxons had a very different approach to land, its ownership and usage. The
situation has never been rectified. The UK still has this landowning
aristocratic legacy, which still, despite propaganda stating otherwise, has
a large effect and influence on the British people. Large landowners are
part of the British establishment and do everything in their power to keep
the status quo. The late Enoch Powel described the British establishment as
"the power that need not speak its name". A very astute description.
Most of these landowners produce little making their vast profits by taking
rent. When the media reports that times are hard for farmers, they omit the
word "tenant". It should be "tenant farmers". When times are bad the
landowner always gets his rent, or takes the farm back, paying no taxes on
it when idle, and leaves it until times are better.

To justify their monopolies in land ownership, large landowners state they
are only custodians of the land and only they can maintain the land
properly. "Maintaining the land properly" is a rather open and vague, if
they ever do such a thing of course. If these people are only custodians
and looking after the land for our benefit, then why aren't the public
allowed on uncultivated land? These "custodians" fence off all their lands
and only allow on people when forced to by law. Their claims clearly do not
hold water.

The UK has never had a revolution and no political party has had the stomach
to face up to large landowners, who are a legacy of our totally unjust past.
Landed families infiltrate the top brass of the military. In the 1960s,
there were many rumours of military coups against the reforming Wilson
government as many thought, amongst other things, he would nationalise land.
After all, in 1945 Atlee promise land reform, but ran out of time, so
Wilson, a major part of the Atlee government, should carry out the promise
when the Labour party returned to power, which he mysteriously never did.

Tony Blair ejected from the House of Lords 66 hereditary peers, who between
them owned the equivalent of 4.5 average sized English counties. The Royal
family controls approximate the size of one average sized English county.
The Duke of Argyle owns vast tracts of Scotland. Historically landowners
have been a problem; the Irish famine was a direct result of large
landowners. The problem is still with us and in many respects even greater.
With large landowners being omnipresent in the Palace of Westminster, land
reform would always be difficult if near impossible. Tony Blair ejecting
hereditary peers is the first step in land reform, as one barrier has been
partially dismantled.

b) Large Construction Companies.

Approximately 80% of all homes built in the UK are built by only 20
companies. In no other country in the western world does this monopoly
exist. The House Builders Federation influences the building regulations so
heavily in order to maintain the status quo that the UK is backwards in
house building technology compared to large parts of Western Europe,
Scandinavia and North America. The House Builders Federation opposes any
increase in building regulation that they perceive will eat into their vast
profits. They opposed all increases in insulation standards and in 1990
described the proposed insulation increase as a cosmetic exercise.

Graham Chapman, who founded the Lotus motor car company, wanted to make the
best sports cars, and aimed to do so. Large house developers only want
profit not caring about the poor quality dross they serve up. None want to
build the best designed and constructed houses. As no Graham Chapman is
present in the British construction industry, they will have to be
legislated into leading edge advanced designs and construction.

The deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has verbally ordered developers to
adopt advanced technology, otherwise he says he will intervene. However,
there is no legislation to force the issue, although Prescott's famed left
hook might. All encouraging, however too little. The recent PPS7 law,
which on paper actively encourages advanced eco construction, is a positive
step. If PPS7 is implemented anything like the previous PPG7, Gummers law,
which permitted building houses in the countryside, then hope is lost.
Approximately 100 houses were built in the countryside under Gummers law
from 1997 to 2004. This figure is so low it is not worth considering.
Theoretically you could build, however the planners would block proposals at
every angle and opportunity rendering the law virtually useless.

It comes as no surprise that the richest people in the UK are landowners and
construction companies. The richest man in the USA is Bill Gates who
creates software products that people benefit from - he is productive, he
produces. In the UK, the richest man is the Duke of Westminster, who
primarily takes in rent.

c) A Poor Performing Industry

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, which only accounts for 3%
at most of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry is
absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for
much needed higher quality homes for people. Much of the land is paid to
remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of
agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper
elsewhere. The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was
virtually killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This
created great misery and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture
is subsidised to the hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be
better utilised for the greater good of our society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We
also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel
industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad.
Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry that
consumes land that certainly could be better used? What is good for the
goose is good for the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is about £4.5 billion per year, up to £6
billion if BSE and Foot and Mouth is taken into account. This is £6 billion
to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry,
about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture
absorbs, and about 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to
farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of
the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the people of the
UK. Allowing people to spread out and live amongst nature is highly
desirable and at the same time lower land prices, which means lower house
prices which the UK desperately requires. Second country homes could be
within reach of many people, as in Scandinavia, creating a large recreation
industry and keeping people within touch with the nature of their own
country.


Question 4. Why is this artificial land shortage tolerated by the people of
the UK?

Quite simply the large landowners have waged a subtle highly successful
propaganda campaign that has convinced the people of The UK that they do not
have enough land and that nothing should be built on open countryside.
Propaganda may appear too strong a word, however propaganda it certainly is.
Large landowners point to very large countries like the USA and Australia as
proof the UK is small. When viewing the UK in isolation it is not small and
can easily supports its 60 million people and even lots more. Their
propaganda campaign has been so successful, you will find poor people in
inner city sink estates agreeing that the countryside should not be built
on; people who probably have never even stepped on a field.

Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as "concreting over
the countryside" and "urban sprawl". With only 7.5% of the land built on,
we can't concrete over the countryside even if we wanted to. About two
thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the
remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on
open countryside. Cities have a natural limit. The generally accepted
limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other
its expansion naturally tails off. In olden times this hour was on foot or
on horseback, now it is in cars or on public transport. So we can't
"sprawl" too far either. In England the area of greenbelt has doubled
since 1980, with nearly 21 million acres absorbed in total. We actually
have greenbelt sprawl.

The biggest propaganda organs a the Council For The Protection of Rural
England, the Countryside Alliance and Friends of the Earth. All are fronts
or used by large landowners. Large landowners use green groups to keep
people out the countryside. The former is an organisation formed by large
landowners and the latter is funded by large landowners. Their angle is
keep the status quo by keeping townies out of the countryside, and also
keeping villagers in villages.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England, have protected little of
rural England, except the large bank balances of large landowners. They
have protected little of the character of the English countryside since
world war two, despite claiming they have. To justify their existence and
increase public awareness, acceptance and credibility they have objected to
Liverpool Football Club building a new stadium on a grade two listed park
adjacent to their current Anfield home. The Anfield district of Liverpool
is far from rural being one of the most densely populated districts in the
UK.

In 1940 the German air force took photo reconnaissance photos of largely
southern England. The captured photos, when compared to the ordnance survey
maps of 1870, 70 years before, clearly indicated there was little difference
in topology. When compared to the ordnance survey maps of today, there are
vast changes. The 1947 T&C planning act just allowed landscape raping
agriculturalists, who only contribute 3% to the UK economy, to go wild.

They claim to be acting in the interest of the land, wildlife and the
countryside in general. This is far from the case. It is the obscene
profits of landowners they are primarily interested in.

SOLUTIONS

1. Nationalise Land
2. Redistribute Land.
3. Land Value Tax


1. NATIONALISE LAND

In theory, the Queen, the state, owns all the land in the UK. When you buy
you only have an infinite lease on the land, you do not actually own it. A
nation state has sovereignty over its own territory. In short, it owns all
the land. So how can individual people own its land too? Sounds like horse
trading, and it is.

For the state to take direct control of land would be a difficult task to
undertake. It would not be generally accepted by the people, although they
own it anyhow. Compensation would be demanded by landowners. Compensating
landowners would be akin to compensating slave traders when slavery was
abolished; as the British government did. The concept of "land ownership"
has been in the western psyche for hundreds of years, and redirecting their
mindset would be difficult and lengthy.

Nationalising land would mean some form of lease back arrangement, which the
government would receive rents. Of course, a relaxed planning system must
accompany such nationalisation, to allow people to freely live on the land.


2. REDISTRIBUTE LAND.

Most major western nations have re-distributed land or have laws preventing
large areas of land being in the hands of a few people. These countries
generally have a higher quality of life than the UK because of their
sensible land laws. The British government started the ball rolling in the
late 1800s to re-distribute land in Ireland. It was accomplished in 2000
with the Irish Land Commission being disbanded completing the task. The
land had to be bought from the larger landowners, none was given away. Land
re-distribution in Ireland has been attributed as one of the platforms of
its economic success. Large landowners were a direct cause of the Irish
famine, which eventually resulted in the Irish rebellion. Land being in the
hands of a few is not ideal from many aspects.

The British government is to pay for land re-distribution in Zimbabwe -
using British taxpayers money. The British government can re-distribute
land elsewhere in the world, but fails to do so in its own backyard. A
backyard screaming out for land and planning reform.

In 1945 the Americans assessed Japan and how it should cope with the future.
They assessed that land ownership was a major obstacle, being in the hands
of a few people. Land re-distribution forced on the Japanese to great
effect, was one of the keystones of their post war economic miracle.

Land re-distribution is effective. It may mean large landowners will have
to sell parts of their estates, with laws capping land ownership levels. Of
course, a relaxed planning system must accompany such re-distribution, to
allow people to freely live on the land.


3. LAND VALUE TAX (LVT)

Henry George, an American, the man who devised LVT, initially proposed
government ownership of all land, as the people owned it anyhow. Getting it
across and accepted would have been virtually impossible. If you say,
redistribute land, people cry "commie, taking away from me what is mine".
Henry George realised that people will not accept that you cannot own land.
It is in the western world's psyche, especially the Anglo Saxon. That is
where LVT scores. Own land by all means, but if you own half of Scotland
just to shoot birds on, then you will be taxed on that land, which currently
is not the case. LVT will force large landowners to sell land and not hoard
it. It will also encourage them to make productive use of the land, if they
can't then they sell it to someone who can make productive use of it.

LVT taxes only the "value" of the land, which is based on the area the land
is located. Someone in northern Scotland on one acre will pay very little
as the land is not worth so much. Someone in central London with one acre
pays a hell of a lot more.

LVT does not tax a mans effort, his labour, and hence his productivity,
which the current system does, holding back advancement.

Currently we tax people's labour and lifestyle. If I work more they tax me
more, if I build a nice extension to my house so my family can enjoy and
improve their quality of life, they raise the council tax on the house.
Totally ludicrous. There can be two one acre plots side by side. I want to
build an 8 roomed house for my family to enjoy and the man next door a 2 bed
bungalow, so he can enjoy the land for gardening. Under the current system,
I pay more than next door in council tax. Under LVT we pay the same as the
bricks on the land is not regarded as taxable, only the land is. A large
house creates jobs in building and maintaining it, yet the current system
suppresses job creation and curtails the quality of life by penalising
people who build larger houses. The word large is all relevant. A large
house in the UK would be an average house in the USA.

LVT spreads the proceeds of a society's productivity more evenly than at
present. It does not penalise a person's effort to advance.

Winston Churchill was a great advocate of Land Value Tax.


PLANNING

Land reform must mesh with decent relaxed planning laws that allow people to
build on all land. Relaxed planning laws are essential, as any laws passed
relating to land are rendered sterile. Areas of natural beauty, SSSI's,
national parks, industrial and commercial sectors etc, of course should have
restrictions, which still leaves a vast amount of subsidised field Britain
to build on. Building on a larger mass of land will eliminate the
unappealing high density, high impact developer estates; the sort people
when looking at shudder, with many having to buy as they have hobson's
choice. When people say do not build on the countryside they envisage high
density, high impact developer estates. The vision of these estates stirs
negative emotions. That just would not occur if the people are allowed to
spread out on the land. With cheaper land, people would build larger houses
on larger plots for less money. Having the large developers curtailed will
result in a mixed assortment of higher quality homes.

The autonomous house is virtually here. Superinsulation, septic tanks,
combined heat & power units, grey water re-cycling, rainwater harvesting,
wireless communications, mobile phones, etc, are all here. This sort of
house also has a low impact on the environment. Connection to urban
utilities is no longer necessary. Locating homes just about anywhere in the
UK is now feasible. Herding people into urban communities because they
offered basic utilities no longer need be the case.

We should be living amongst nature, not having to drive out to see it.
Walking on land is another matter, as most of it is fenced off. Countryside
organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built on. We now
have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these sites vacant, cleaned up
and into parks or made natural again, encouraging wildlife for the local
people to enjoy. This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas,
improving the quality of life of urban dwellers righting the wrongs of the
incompetent planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath should be
actively encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus.
The deliberate differentiation between town and country requires abolition
as the Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words town
and country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate
societies. It creates distrust.

When presenting an advanced German Huf Haus house on TV, Quentin Wilson
stated that modern architecture in Britain ceased after world war two.
Quentin was totally correct. The 1947 Town & Country Planning act curtailed
advancement in design, being hostile to change. Top British eco architects
Brenda and Robert Vale left the UK to practice abroad, disillusioned at a
planning system that firmly restricts advancement.

The recently passed PPS7 law, may hopefully pave the way for people to live
back in the countryside and build individual homes on greenfield sites. The
proviso is that it must be an eco house, well designed, modern, with
advanced construction techniques. Taken from the act:

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

"11. Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the
design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special
justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be
truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials,
methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the
environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural
areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the
highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement
of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics
of the local area."


THE WAY FORWARD

Sort out the land and planning systems and many problems that appear
unrelated in our society disappear. It is not a panacea to right all the
country's ills; however it will be a superb base on which to spring from, as
other countries have effectively demonstrated, and right many, many of the
problems of our unfair and uneven society.

A stumbling block to any reform by the general public is that many home
owners perceive that planning and land reform will devalue their homes and
result in negative equity. The country appears obsessed with house price
values. Value is an abstract concept with cash being the reality. In some
areas negative equity may be the case, although some opinion is that this
would not occur. A fund taken from LVT taxes could compensate those who
drop into the trap. As land prices rise negative equity will no longer be a
problem, just a transitional problem from changing from one system to
another.

Clearly the public need to be informed that land, the God given stuff under
their feet, without which we cannot survive, is the major problem in their
own advancement and actually curtails their current living standards and
quality of life. That is the man in the inner city sink estate, the man in
the terraced house, the man in the box semi, the man in the executive home
and the country villager. Once the public is aware and this suppressed
problem becomes an open issue, then the road is clear for land reform no
matter what method is selected. Until then land and land tax reformers are
spitting into the wind. The emphasis must be moved to educate and alert the
average man and how he is directly affected.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the
Germans?

Here is why....

snip IMMs regurgitated substitute for own thinking.


YAWN

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:25:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .

Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the
Germans?

Here is why....

AN OBJECTIVE VIEW OF LAND IN THE UK



Yawn......


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered,
ta all the same! Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue
tiles you see on some new builds in Germany. Why don't we do
fantastic looking, efficient properties of quality like the
Germans?

We do have some builders who set out to produce quality energy
efficient homes: I was on a course last weekend where a
presentation was given by the boss of Gusto Homes - see
http://www.gustogroup.biz/new/features.php . In questioning
though he reckoned that only about 1/3 of their buyers were
interested in the spec: for the rest it was price, appearance and
location.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article , Imm wrote:
House Prices Are Far Too High - The people of the UK pay very
high prices for very small high density homes. Very few people
realise this.

Will you never learn. They can look in the estate agents opposite
our office and see 1/8 acre 3-bed semis and poky 2-up 2-down
cottages for the same price. Lots of people choose the latter
knowing full well that they could get more m2 for their money.

High land values cascading into house prices

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You
value a piece of development land by the residual method: value =
sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing
costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination,
ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:25:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .

Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the
Germans?

Here is why....

AN OBJECTIVE VIEW OF LAND IN THE UK



Yawn......

Yoiu never read it! Now read it!

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

High land values cascading into house prices

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You
value a piece of development land by the residual method: value =
sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing
costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination,
ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

--

I reckon high house prices are due to the obsession with "affordable"
housing and starter homes.
If they'd built thousands of large detatched houses instead, then people
with the money would be buying those, not competing for the smaller houses
that everyone else expects to be able to buy.

The price at the cheaper end of the market drifts up to what the average
first time buyer can afford to pay. It doesn't matter how small or cheaply
you build them, the price will always drift up to that level (unless there
is oversupply, which there is not). It would be better to lay down minimum
plot and room sizes, and not allow tiny houses to be built at all. The
bottom end of the market would then eventually consist of these decent sized
homes instead of the rabbit hutches - but for the same price.

"Bob" wrote in message
...

I reckon high house prices are due to
the obsession with "affordable"
housing and starter homes.
If they'd built thousands of large detatched
houses instead, then people
with the money would be buying those,
.. not competing for the smaller houses
that everyone else expects to be able to buy.

Very true. We need land released to make the houses affordable even for
large houses too.

It would be better to lay down minimum
plot and room sizes, and not allow tiny
houses to be built at all.

Good thinking.

The bottom end of the market would
then eventually consist of these decent sized
homes instead of the rabbit hutches - but for the same price.

Very true.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:
House Prices Are Far Too High - The people of the UK pay very
high prices for very small high density homes. Very few people
realise this.

Will you never learn. They can look in the estate agents opposite
our office and see 1/8 acre 3-bed semis and poky 2-up 2-down
cottages for the same price. Lots of people choose the latter
knowing full well that they could get more m2 for their money.

High land values cascading into house prices

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You
value a piece of development land by the residual method: value =
sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing
costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination,
ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

Right way around. the high land prices is because they only drip feed land
for building, keeping land and hence house prices up. It is not the way you
say.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered,
ta all the same! Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue
tiles you see on some new builds in Germany. Why don't we do
fantastic looking, efficient properties of quality like the
Germans?

We do have some builders who set out to produce quality energy
efficient homes: I was on a course last weekend where a
presentation was given by the boss of Gusto Homes - see
http://www.gustogroup.biz/new/features.php . In questioning
though he reckoned that only about 1/3 of their buyers were
interested in the spec: for the rest it was price, appearance and
location.

That is why the government have to legislate eco homes into the mainstream.

In message , Bob
writes
The price at the cheaper end of the market drifts up to what the
average first time buyer can afford to pay. It doesn't matter how
small or cheaply you build them, the price will always drift up to that
level

I wonder if this follows from average wage differences in different
regions.



--
Richard Faulkner

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:43:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote:




Thanks for the tips about the foundations, etc. But I'm not in the
slightest bit interested in SIPs, straw bales, that kind of thing. To
me a house is a house that is built like a brick outhouse, end of
story. Bricks, mortar, windows, a chimney, and a fireplace. Simple. I
don't care if it's a bit draughty.

You may not, but the BCO will.


Stuff 'em! I'll open a window as soon as they've left.


Nice cavity insulated rendered basic concrete block house with decent
tiles on eh?


Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered, ta all
the same! Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue tiles you see
on some new builds in Germany. Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the Germans? I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs! My late sister's house is a fantastic property, but you'd
never see one like it in Britain, except at an exhibition, perhaps. It
has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.
Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement! You've
paid for the plot, so why not exploit its full potential? Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs! And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

iNDEED. i LEARNT A LOT FROM WATCHING MY SISTERS HOUSE GET BULT IN GERMANY.

iTS TOTALLY FEASIBLE TO BUILD YOUR WON TEH WAY YOU WANT IT



Do put in underfloor heating tho.


Absolutely out of the question. I hate underfloor heating. It feels
like the downstairs is on fire. When I stand at a bathroom sink having
a shave, the floor tiles are *supposed* to be cold! Warm tiles feel
like you've wet yourself. Horrid, horrid, HORRID!



Oh? I just like the overall 'its not cold, its not hot, its just right'
feel to everythung.

and amins preessure hot water system, not one of those fashionable
religious icons - combis.


Dunno about heating. As long as the water gets piping hot once a day
for my bath and the washing up and it is cheap, I don't care if I feed
it with IMM's straw bales. I definitely would look at recovering heat
from the ground and at solar panels, though. Again, take solar panels.
A bungalow near me has them on the roof. They look an absolutely
eyesore! Why cannot designers at least try to make new gadgets
visually appealing?


Bit hard with solar panels. Flat and black is what you need.

And chinmeys and a real fire place.


Absolutely! There's nothing like a roaring log fire, a glass of wine,
and a prawn cocktail with a squeeze of lemon to finish the day very
nicely indeed.

On that we can agree.

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:59:58 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:


Whether there is serious damp or not is usually a moot point. If you are
going to walk away from a house with some damp, (or even knock them down
to rebuild), you will probably be walking away from a lot of houses.


That is interesting, too. I think we do tend to get carried away by
horror stories we read about or see on the telly. I cannot believe
that a house that has stood for a good 150 years (in the meantime the
estimate has risen to 200 years, having spoken again to the agent!)
can be beyond redemption, even if it does need a "bit of work" done to
it (the agent's comments). Certainly, the houses I grew up in, lacking
central heating and only having a fire in the sitting room, and only
*then* if dad or mum had laid one, even in the depths of winter, were
always damp and cold, yet we were healthy kids! Our warmth came from
within, as Dad would admonish us, "Eat up your fat, it's good for
you!", whether it was bacon, lamb, or beef.

MM

No house is beyond redemption, but there is a point at which a rebuild
is more economic, especially if the basic structure is unsatisfactory.

Bob wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...


High land values cascading into house prices

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You
value a piece of development land by the residual method: value =
sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing
costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination,
ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

--


I reckon high house prices are due to the obsession with "affordable"
housing and starter homes.

Wrong. High house prices are simply the result of lack of houses and
easy access to cheap capital.

A few years ago you could buy a house for a couple of grand in a welsh
mining village. There were the spare houses. Good ones too.



House prices will rise as long as people can just afford to buy them:
The only reason to lower the price on a house is if it won't sell.


IMM's solution would be to flood the whole countryside with cheap
cardboard houses all the same, on huge estates built over farmland
stolen from some toff. Or flood plains.

It is just as easy, and ecologically far more sound, to build high rise
apartments, concentrating population where public transport is, and
facilities are - especially as most people ruin their gardens anyway for
car parking space and 'decking'

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:23:53 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:12:07 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:43:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:



Thanks for the tips about the foundations, etc. But I'm not in the
slightest bit interested in SIPs, straw bales, that kind of thing. To
me a house is a house that is built like a brick outhouse, end of
story. Bricks, mortar, windows, a chimney, and a fireplace. Simple. I
don't care if it's a bit draughty.

You may not, but the BCO will.

Stuff 'em! I'll open a window as soon as they've left.

Nice cavity insulated rendered basic concrete block house with decent
tiles on eh?

Cavity insulated *brick and block*, not concrete, not rendered, ta all
the same! Decent tiles, too. My favourite are the blue tiles you see
on some new builds in Germany. Why don't we do fantastic looking,
efficient properties of quality like the Germans?

Why indeed. Most that I've seen recently are being constructed with
bricks and blocks with insulation in between.

I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs! My late sister's house is a fantastic property, but you'd
never see one like it in Britain, except at an exhibition, perhaps. It
has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.

Yes, and useful they are as well, same story in France, although they
have specific things to store in the "cave".

Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement! You've
paid for the plot, so why not exploit its full potential? Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs! And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

.. and seemingly they do as well.



Do put in underfloor heating tho.

Absolutely out of the question. I hate underfloor heating. It feels
like the downstairs is on fire. When I stand at a bathroom sink having
a shave, the floor tiles are *supposed* to be cold! Warm tiles feel
like you've wet yourself. Horrid, horrid, HORRID!

and amins preessure hot water system, not one of those fashionable
religious icons - combis.

Dunno about heating. As long as the water gets piping hot once a day
for my bath and the washing up and it is cheap, I don't care if I feed
it with IMM's straw bales. I definitely would look at recovering heat
from the ground and at solar panels, though. Again, take solar panels.
A bungalow near me has them on the roof. They look an absolutely
eyesore! Why cannot designers at least try to make new gadgets
visually appealing?


And chinmeys and a real fire place.

Absolutely! There's nothing like a roaring log fire, a glass of wine,
and a prawn cocktail with a squeeze of lemon to finish the day very
nicely indeed.

In Germany they have Black Forest Gateau as well :-)

And Bockwurst. And Bratwurst at the weekly market with a dab of
mustard on the side and a fresh, crispy Brötchen served up by a busty
Mädchen. And Kartoffelklöße. And Spätzle. And Rheinischer Sauerbraten
with red cabbage with apple bits in. And Eisbein with Saukerkraut and
mashed potato. And mayonnaise on your chips. And cheap wine and beer.
And shopping a third less than in Britain...and political awareness...
and Sundays still like Sundays used to be...

....(swoons)

MM

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:28:15 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



And Bockwurst. And Bratwurst at the weekly market with a dab of
mustard on the side and a fresh, crispy Brötchen served up by a busty
Mädchen. And Kartoffelklöße. And Spätzle. And Rheinischer Sauerbraten
with red cabbage with apple bits in. And Eisbein with Saukerkraut and
mashed potato.

Similar to Schweinshaxe?


And mayonnaise on your chips. And cheap wine and beer.
And shopping a third less than in Britain...and political awareness...
and Sundays still like Sundays used to be...


That I haven't noticed - please describe.

I do like the Christmas markets in the small towns in Bavaria.

Bread's pretty good as well. Broad spectrum of beers.

I've never seen mayonnaise on chips in Germany - Belgium and Holland
yes (fritesauce).


...(swoons)

MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...


High land values cascading into house prices

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You
value a piece of development land by the residual method: value =
sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing
costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination,
ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

--


I reckon high house prices are due to the obsession with "affordable"
housing and starter homes.

Wrong. High house prices are simply the result of lack of houses and
easy access to cheap capital.

A few years ago you could buy a house for a couple of grand in a welsh
mining village. There were the spare houses. Good ones too.

God one? In a Welsh mining village. Get real. Only fit enough for the
dogs.

House prices will rise as long as people can just afford to buy them:

They have Hobson's choice.

The only reason to lower the
price on a house is if it won't sell.

IMM's solution would be to flood the
whole countryside with cheap
cardboard houses all the same,

Er nope. Good quality eco houses in the countryside.

on huge estates built over farmland
stolen from some toff.

Well if 27% of the land is re;leased becacasues it is uneconomonic, then no
houssing estates would exist as there is just far too much land to fill.
The existing urban footprint is actually 6.6% of the total land.

Or flood plains.

Build house boats.

It is just as easy, and ecologically
far more sound, to build high rise
apartments, concentrating population
where public transport is, and
facilities are

For those who want that, yes. But maybe they can have a weekend house in ten
country too.

- especially as most people ruin their
gardens anyway for
car parking space and 'decking'

If 27% of the land is available then gardens would be much, much bigger.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:12:07 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs!

No thank you - lived in plenty of them and only survived in one by
wearing rubber gloves when going near unearthed washing machines.
The 25kW instant water heater that made the TV picture shrink and the
light go out was something else as well.

It has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.

That's because the 2ATAF slum clearance programme concentrated their
minds and in 1949 it became a mandatory requirement on all new
builds. In Germany anything which is not mandatory is prohibited.

Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement!

True, blame the RAF as usual :-)

Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs!

and 150 year mortgages.

And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

True - the only country where having a child is essential to getting
a mortgage (someone has to pay the last 100 years).

Of course something like 80% of the population don't own a house -
they rent.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Bob wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...



High land values cascading into house prices

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You
value a piece of development land by the residual method: value =
sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing
costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination,
ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

--


I reckon high house prices are due to the obsession with "affordable"
housing and starter homes.

Wrong. High house prices are simply the result of lack of houses and
easy access to cheap capital.

A few years ago you could buy a house for a couple of grand in a welsh
mining village. There were the spare houses. Good ones too.


God one? In a Welsh mining village. Get real. Only fit enough for the
dogs.

Swyfryd. Damned fine little terraced house. Now insulated, double
glazed, fine view over teh valley, and withing commuting range of
Bristol twice a week.

Bloody S Wales is gett8ing to be a bloody good place to live actually.
New industry everywhere.




House prices will rise as long as people can just afford to buy them:


They have Hobson's choice.


The only reason to lower the
price on a house is if it won't sell.

IMM's solution would be to flood the
whole countryside with cheap
cardboard houses all the same,


Er nope. Good quality eco houses in the countryside.


Whay for? Each house takes up more eco space than it can possibly ever
replace. We want woods and trees to fix carbon, not bloody superhutches
(eco friendly my arse) that cover over flood plains and need roads to
replace trees to allow people to actually get to them.

Its total bloody ********. Its IMM piffle, Its NU Laber double think.

A quick wank with the eco bit, and its all right to turn nature into a
housing estate.

Total ****ing humbug.



on huge estates built over farmland
stolen from some toff.


Well if 27% of the land is re;leased becacasues it is uneconomonic, then no
houssing estates would exist as there is just far too much land to fill.
The existing urban footprint is actually 6.6% of the total land.


Have yoi actually looked at a map recently? Or is this some blody IMMway
of defining 'urban space'

As far as I am concrened London starts at Bristol, camberidge and
birmingham, and goes right up to teh bloody south coast.

Its ALL SUBURBIA. Ther is almost no contigous open counry anywhere in
that whole zone.


Or flood plains.


Build house boats.

Better. Why not? EWhu not buld a whole ****ing eco housing estate off
teh east coast, coplete with ****ing windmills and let all the IMMS live
there.,

Oh. I forgot. We did. Its called Denmark.,

I suggest you **** of there.


It is just as easy, and ecologically
far more sound, to build high rise
apartments, concentrating population
where public transport is, and
facilities are


For those who want that, yes. But maybe they can have a weekend house in ten
country too.

One will be perfectly adequate. I don't need two jags, let alone ten
country houses


- especially as most people ruin their
gardens anyway for
car parking space and 'decking'


If 27% of the land is available then gardens would be much, much bigger.

No they fucling wouldn'ty you arse.

People don't WANT big gardens. They don't have the first idea what to do
with them, other than turn them into an outside room. They don't effing
garden, they don't mnanage land, they just liter theirs up with bits of
plastic they got from Toys'R'Us, and bloody brats that cream and shout
and then turn into people like you.

Give em high rise flats and NHS heroin and big brother and they'd vote
even you to be PM.

Mike Mitchell typed:

Okay, here's the story. I am now considering a property in
Lincolnshire.
This is a very, very old cottage, at least 150 years
from the agent, who told me that the building had been underpinned
Does underpinning cure, or postpone, a problem?

Questions you need to ask, why did it need underpinning
trees -drains - weather/clay sub soil.
When was it done, the longer it has had to resettle the better without
further movement.
Was it an insurance job, renowned for only doing the bear minimum to
satisfy clam.
If it was recent ie last year personally I would run a mile.

and BTW early Victorian Era is only considered "very very old" by our
American cousins.

--
Mark

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
In Germany they have Black Forest Gateau as well :-)

And Bockwurst. And Bratwurst at the weekly market with a dab of
mustard on the side and a fresh, crispy Brötchen served up by a busty
Mädchen. And Kartoffelklöße. And Spätzle. And Rheinischer Sauerbraten
with red cabbage with apple bits in. And Eisbein with Saukerkraut and
mashed potato. And mayonnaise on your chips. And cheap wine and beer.
And shopping a third less than in Britain...and political awareness...
and Sundays still like Sundays used to be...

Yeah - no bloody shops open and you can't even mow the lawn. Great !!!

NOT.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:12:07 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs!

No thank you - lived in plenty of them and only survived in one by
wearing rubber gloves when going near unearthed washing machines.
The 25kW instant water heater that made the TV picture shrink and the
light go out was something else as well.

It has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.

That's because the 2ATAF slum clearance programme concentrated their
minds and in 1949 it became a mandatory requirement on all new
builds. In Germany anything which is not mandatory is prohibited.

Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement!

True, blame the RAF as usual :-)

Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs!

and 150 year mortgages.

And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

True - the only country where having a child is essential to getting
a mortgage (someone has to pay the last 100 years).

Not the only country - Japan has this problem as well.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:12:07 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs!

No thank you - lived in plenty of them and only survived in one by
wearing rubber gloves when going near unearthed washing machines.
The 25kW instant water heater that made the TV picture shrink and the
light go out was something else as well.

It has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.

That's because the 2ATAF slum clearance programme concentrated their
minds and in 1949 it became a mandatory requirement on all new
builds. In Germany anything which is not mandatory is prohibited.

Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement!

True, blame the RAF as usual :-)

Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs!

and 150 year mortgages.

And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

True - the only country where having a child is essential to getting
a mortgage (someone has to pay the last 100 years).

Of course something like 80% of the population don't own a house -
they rent.


Not so. Some info I dug out:

The home ownership figures for Germany are about 50% and almost all of these
are houses.

In the UK 10-12% of all houses built are selfbuilds, which is about 12,000
houses. In Austria and Ireland it is about 70%. In Scandinavia, Germany
and France about 60%. The USA is 30%, which amounts to millions of houses
per year. The UK has the lowest level of selfbuilds in the western world due
to the Draconian planning laws, land not being re-distributed and favouring
the large developers who oppose all increases to the building regs

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Bob wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...



High land values cascading into house prices

Wrong way round: the house prices determine the land value. You
value a piece of development land by the residual method: value =
sale price of completed development - (build+design+legal+marketing
costs + required profit). If it's a difficult site (contamination,
ground conditions etc) it might have a negative value.

--


I reckon high house prices are due to the obsession with "affordable"
housing and starter homes.

Wrong. High house prices are simply the result of lack of houses and
easy access to cheap capital.

A few years ago you could buy a house for a couple of grand in a welsh
mining village. There were the spare houses. Good ones too.


God one? In a Welsh mining village. Get real. Only fit enough for the
dogs.

Swyfryd. Damned fine little terraced house. Now insulated, double
glazed, fine view over teh valley, and withing commuting range of
Bristol twice a week.

Bloody S Wales is gett8ing to be a bloody good place to live actually.
New industry everywhere.

I have relative who live there and I give the place a miss. The level of
trades quality must be the lowest I have seen in the UK. The people are
generally unprogressive, relying of subsidies for industry and direct. The
old mining villages should have been bulldozed decades ago.

IMM's solution would be to flood the
whole countryside with cheap
cardboard houses all the same,


Er nope. Good quality eco houses in the countryside.

Whay for? Each house takes up more eco space
than it can possibly ever replace. We want woods
and trees to fix carbon,

Enough trees can be planted on much of the surplus 27% of the land. You
have to see the big picture.

snip mentalist drivel

on huge estates built over farmland
stolen from some toff.

Well if 27% of the land is released because
it is uneconomic, then no housing estates
would exist as there is just far too much land to fill.
The existing urban footprint is actually 6.6% of
the total land.

Have you actually looked at a map recently?
Or is this some blody IMMway
of defining 'urban space'

Have you looked at figure? No. Read "all" the post of mine on land. the
figures are there.

As far as I am concrened London starts
at Bristol, camberidge and
birmingham, and goes right up to teh bloody
south coast.

You should look at a map. Only 7.1% of the south east is built on. The Home
counties are underpopulated. The urban footprint is only 6.6% of the land
mass. Kate Barkers figures.

There is so much land we can't "concrete over the countryside" even if we
wanted to. The countryside population is falling. Releasing land and
allowing people to build in the countryside will reverse this trend.

Its ALL SUBURBIA. Ther is almost no
contigous open counry anywhere in
that whole zone.

You should get out more. Get off the M and A roads where most development
naturally exists, and you see virtually nothing for miles upon mile. Just
subsidised field after subsidised field. And LOOK at the FIGURES. Don't
imagine things.

It is just as easy, and ecologically
far more sound, to build high rise
apartments, concentrating population
where public transport is, and
facilities are

For those who want that, yes. But maybe
they can have a weekend house in ten
country too.

One will be perfectly adequate. I don't need
two jags, let alone ten country houses

Just one weekend house would do most people as in Scandinavia.

- especially as most people ruin their
gardens anyway for
car parking space and 'decking'

If 27% of the land is made available then gardens
would be much, much bigger.

No they fucling wouldn'ty you arse.

They would

People don't WANT big gardens.

They do.

They don't have the first idea what to do
with them,

Don't be silly. Garden Centres are booming.

snip mentalist derogatory babble about people in general

What a sad *******.

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:12:07 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

I don't mean one of
IMM's weirdo properties, but bog-standard ones - just to German
designs!

No thank you - lived in plenty of them and only survived in one by
wearing rubber gloves when going near unearthed washing machines.
The 25kW instant water heater that made the TV picture shrink and the
light go out was something else as well.

It has a basement. Nearly all modern German houses have a basement.

That's because the 2ATAF slum clearance programme concentrated their
minds and in 1949 it became a mandatory requirement on all new
builds. In Germany anything which is not mandatory is prohibited.

Nearly all British houses, old or new, do NOT have a basement!

True, blame the RAF as usual :-)

Drive around
any German suburb and see so many fantastic designs!

and 150 year mortgages.

And these are not
all super-rich people, either, but just ordinary working folks with
middling to good jobs who believe in paying for quality, and getting
it.

True - the only country where having a child is essential to getting
a mortgage (someone has to pay the last 100 years).

Not the only country - Japan has this problem as well.

A relevant point is that people don't pay excessively high mortgages
throughout their lives and can have a nice big house and more expendable
income. In the UK we are skint most of our lives paying for a house. When it
is ours with a supposedly higher income because of no mortgage, we are too
old to matter.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:03:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Not so. Some info I dug out:

The home ownership figures for Germany are about 50% and almost all of these
are houses.

In the UK 10-12% of all houses built are selfbuilds, which is about 12,000
houses. In Austria and Ireland it is about 70%. In Scandinavia, Germany
and France about 60%. The USA is 30%, which amounts to millions of houses
per year. The UK has the lowest level of selfbuilds in the western world due
to the Draconian planning laws, land not being re-distributed and favouring
the large developers who oppose all increases to the building regs



The self build figures are questionnable based on what your definition
of a self build actually is.

I know numerous homeowners in all of those countries and it is popular
to buy a piece of land and have a house built on it. However, this
does not mean that the homeowner rolled up his sleeves and did any of
the physical work. Usually here, it does mean that there was some
practical involvement.

In Scandinavia it is popular to buy a house from a prefabrication
factory. The customer selects what he wants from a catalogue (within
the constraints of what is allowed for the site), and that is
constructed in the factory. Needless to say the more expensive ranges
have more choice. At the site, a concrete foundation and plinth
with services is prepared and the whole lot delivered to site and
assembled. However, they certainly have planned developments,
especially at the entry level. These are more planned and restricted
in terms of facilities and what you can do than the UK. For example
in some, the residents association determines what colour you paint
your front door.

In Germany and France, the typical way is to employ an architect and
builder and have the home constructed within the allowances for the
site. It is still highly regulated and far from a free for all.

The main differences are that there are more individual as opposed to
houses built en masse by developers as we have here.
If that is the meaning of self-build then OK, but it certainly doesn't
mean that more people in these countries get their hands dirty.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:03:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Not so. Some info I dug out:

The home ownership figures for Germany are about 50% and almost all of
these
are houses.

In the UK 10-12% of all houses built are selfbuilds, which is about
12,000
houses. In Austria and Ireland it is about 70%. In Scandinavia, Germany
and France about 60%. The USA is 30%, which amounts to millions of houses
per year. The UK has the lowest level of selfbuilds in the western world
due
to the Draconian planning laws, land not being re-distributed and
favouring
the large developers who oppose all increases to the building regs



The self build figures are questionnable
based on what your definition
of a self build actually is.

A selfbuild is where someone buys their own plot and has a house built on
it. It can be a turnkey operation or do it themselves or partially do some
work. See TV prog Grand Designs.

I know numerous homeowners in all of those countries and it is popular
to buy a piece of land and have a house built on it.

Selfbuild.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:38:07 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:03:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Not so. Some info I dug out:

The home ownership figures for Germany are about 50% and almost all of
these
are houses.

In the UK 10-12% of all houses built are selfbuilds, which is about
12,000
houses. In Austria and Ireland it is about 70%. In Scandinavia, Germany
and France about 60%. The USA is 30%, which amounts to millions of houses
per year. The UK has the lowest level of selfbuilds in the western world
due
to the Draconian planning laws, land not being re-distributed and
favouring
the large developers who oppose all increases to the building regs



The self build figures are questionnable
based on what your definition
of a self build actually is.

A selfbuild is where someone buys their own plot and has a house built on
it. It can be a turnkey operation or do it themselves or partially do some
work. See TV prog Grand Designs.

I don't watch trash.



I know numerous homeowners in all of those countries and it is popular
to buy a piece of land and have a house built on it.

Selfbuild.

On that definition, fair enough, but don't imagine that it implies
unrestricted development and people building what they want.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:38:07 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:03:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




Not so. Some info I dug out:

The home ownership figures for Germany are about 50% and almost all of
these
are houses.

In the UK 10-12% of all houses built are selfbuilds, which is about
12,000
houses. In Austria and Ireland it is about 70%. In Scandinavia,
Germany
and France about 60%. The USA is 30%, which amounts to millions of
houses
per year. The UK has the lowest level of selfbuilds in the western
world
due
to the Draconian planning laws, land not being re-distributed and
favouring
the large developers who oppose all increases to the building regs



The self build figures are questionnable
based on what your definition
of a self build actually is.

A selfbuild is where someone buys their own plot and has a house built on
it. It can be a turnkey operation or do it themselves or partially do
some
work. See TV prog Grand Designs.

I don't watch trash.

That's why you know eff all about construction. This prog will bed you in.

I know numerous homeowners in all of those countries and it is popular
to buy a piece of land and have a house built on it.

Selfbuild.

On that definition, fair enough, but don't imagine that it implies
unrestricted development and people building what they want.

No one did, only you.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:35:45 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:28:15 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



And Bockwurst. And Bratwurst at the weekly market with a dab of
mustard on the side and a fresh, crispy Brötchen served up by a busty
Mädchen. And Kartoffelklöße. And Spätzle. And Rheinischer Sauerbraten
with red cabbage with apple bits in. And Eisbein with Saukerkraut and
mashed potato.

Similar to Schweinshaxe?

Schweinshaxe is roasted, Eisbein is boiled. But it is the same hock
part of the leg. Eisbein puts a lot of people off because of the huge,
enveloping band of wobbly fat. But cut this away and the meat inside
is so tender, it eats itself. You don't have to chew. Pure heaven on
your tastebuds! Also, many British people think of Sauerkraut, and
immediately believe it can only be disgusting. It is an acquired
taste, sure, but can be delicious when boiled up with a tasty beef or
vegetable stock. Its tartness admirably offsets the richness of many
dishes.

And mayonnaise on your chips. And cheap wine and beer.
And shopping a third less than in Britain...and political awareness...
and Sundays still like Sundays used to be...


That I haven't noticed - please describe.

On Sundays in Germany almost no shops are open and millions of Germans
take their leisurely stroll after lunch through the local woods. As
there are woods and forests all over Germany, nowhere, except in the
centre of big cities, are you all that far away from a well-trodden
path through the forest, often to a glade in the middle where some
enterprising soul many years ago opened a cafe serving fresh coffee,
beer, ice cream, and a huge range of cakes and tarts with whipped
cream. There is not the hustle and bustle on German Sundays that is
commonplace now all over Britain. And people relax in their often much
larger gardens well away from the neighbours, as they prepare
themselves for the week ahead. We in Britain just allow the rat race
to continue 24/7/365. When I tell my German friends and relatives how
Tesco and Asda near me open at 8:00 am on Monday and *do not close*
until 10:00 pm the following Saturday (only to reopen again for six
hours on the Sunday) they think I must be exaggerating, as no one in
their right mind could possibly wish for such a state of affairs to
exist.

I do like the Christmas markets in the small towns in Bavaria.

They are everywhere, not just in Bayern. Yes, folks! Those who don't
know Germany might be surprised that the Germans have completely
different words for Cologne, Bavaria, Munich, Brunswick...


Bread's pretty good as well. Broad spectrum of beers.

I only started drinking beer when I moved to Germany. I loathe English
beer. It's disgusting. Not something like Samuel Smith's lager,
though. That is as good as any of the Continental beers.

I've never seen mayonnaise on chips in Germany - Belgium and Holland
yes (fritesauce).

Well, curry sauce, ketchup, yes, but mayonnaise, too. At least I have
had it frequently, both in Germany and in Belgium. Don't get me wrong!
I think Belgium does some fantastic food, too! Know how to drive a
Belgian mad? Put him in a round room and tell him there's a bag of
chips in the corner.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

On Sundays in Germany almost no shops are open and millions of Germans
take their leisurely stroll after lunch through the local woods. As
there are woods and forests all over Germany, nowhere, except in the
centre of big cities, are you all that far away from a well-trodden
path through the forest, often to a glade in the middle where some
enterprising soul many years ago opened a cafe serving fresh coffee,
beer, ice cream, and a huge range of cakes and tarts with whipped
cream.

We could have that if the near 27% of the uneconomic land we have is
released for the people to enjoy. We live in urban areas and have to drive
to see the country, often not being able to walk on open land.

There is not the hustle and bustle on German Sundays that is
commonplace now all over Britain. And people relax in their often much
larger gardens well away from the neighbours, as they prepare
themselves for the week ahead. We in Britain just allow the rat race
to continue 24/7/365. When I tell my German friends and relatives how
Tesco and Asda near me open at 8:00 am on Monday and *do not close*
until 10:00 pm the following Saturday (only to reopen again for six
hours on the Sunday) they think I must be exaggerating, as no one in
their right mind could possibly wish for such a state of affairs to
exist.

When I was kid Sundays were like in Germany, except no forests. My mother
always managed to buy he shopping and we never ran out of anything.

Bread's pretty good as well. Broad spectrum of beers.

I only started drinking beer when I moved to Germany. I loathe English
beer. It's disgusting. Not something like Samuel Smith's lager,
though. That is as good as any of the Continental beers.

The English make the best bitters by a mile. Germany is good for larger,
which my Dad described as boys beer.