[diggers350] Re: HELP SAVE DEVON'S COUNTRYSIDE (It is already saved)

[Kate Oliver]

Who exactly is saying that Milton Keynes is a huge success'?

----- Original Message -----
From: "burns_curtis" <john.burns-curtis at bigfoot.com>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: [diggers350] Re: HELP SAVE DEVON'S COUNTRYSIDE (It is already
saved)


> Your message was approved by me (list moderator)
> because I thought your argument was worth being
> shared. You make some interesting
> points, and good to hear the statsitics and learn
> of your quotes.  However, I disagree with you.
>
> Since you obviously take the line of the
> Housebuilders Federation,

I obviously do not.  Do not assume!!!!  I am not in favour of a
system that lines the pockets of large landowners and large
developers.  Most of the land earmarked for the massive construction
programme on the way is owned by large landowners with land not even
in the Land Registry.  Large developers have reserved it.  Rigged!!!

Nevertheless these developer organisations occasionally do come up
with some good research figures.

> would you consider that the main
> motivation in their argument for large
> scale housing projects is profit maximasation,
> and not fulfilling the opening up the vast
> swathes of our green and pleasant land to
> live and work in.

Of course it is.  You said "opening up the vast swathes of our green
and pleasant land to live and work in."  This should be done, however
in a way that spreads the profit around.

The selfbuild market in the UK is about a pathetic 10% of all houses
built.  Selfbuld is a misnomer as it could mean buying a plot and
having a company design and build a house for you, or a man building
the house himself.  The UK figures are way below:

- Ireland (~70%),
- Germany (-40%),
- France (~40%),
- USA (~30%),
- Austria (~70%).
- etc.

This market is ripe for expansion to the good of all, instead of
being in the hands of large land owners/developers.  They need cheap
available land to build on, instead we subsidise landowners to keep
land idle.

Friends of mine from Australia were staying over Xmas and said that
it is normal in Auss to find and buy your own plot and have a
smallish company build your house to your design.  Large developers
are not the norm there.

House development must be taken out of the large landowners who sell
land not in the Land Registry to very large developers.  Kevin Cahill
in his book "Who Owns Briatin" that this market is rigged.  Selfbuild
is the only way forwards in the medium to long term, however cheap
land must be available to them by peeling back the 1947 T&C planning
act, and re-distributing land/inroducing LVT.

> But probably what is the biggest failure
> in your argument is your non-recognition
> ofr the fact that hese type of large scale
> developments will only further distort the
> housing market against the interests of
> those most in need (i.e.  those for whom
> the cost of owning their own home is
> already beyond their reach).

See above. There is nothing wrong with large scale developments as
long as it is done properly.  We know much more about town planning
now.  Milton Keynes is a huge success (who reserve specific selfbuild
plots), so is Cambourn.  Milton Keynes is just full of lakes and
parks and greenery, with a longer shoreline than Jersey.  It can be
done and it has been.

The problem is that only the big boys get a look in, in large
developments.

> Preferential building of free-market
> homes for sale always disadvantages the poor.

What disadvantages the poor is the current Medieval system of 70% of
the UK land being owned by 1% of the population, compounded by a
Stalinist planning system that herds 60 million of us into only 7.5%
of the land mass.

I don't need to spell out that we need:

1.  Re-distribute land or introduce LVT if it results in land being
re-distributed.

2.  Peel back the T&C planning act, freeing people from the confined
spaces we are herded in to.

3.  Ensure that the selfbuld market is the predominant one, as it is
many other countries.

> Not only that, what we need in environmental
> criteria so that development in the countryside
> (for which, yes, there is an obvious need) should
> be subject to strict environmental conditions,
> such as The land is Ours' 15 Criteria for
> Sustainable development.

Give strict environmental conditions, that is fine.
Enforce strict construction detailing as superinsulation with passive
solar incorporated into the design, as they are currently doing in
Germany with their Passiv Solar building regs, rumoured to be adopted
by the EU.  That is fine.
No problems at all.

However do not restrict people from freely building where they want
to.  This keeping people out of the countryside in this misguided
belief that it will save it, has gone way too far to the point it is
ridiculous.  Large landowners, who want to hold on to their masses of
acres their families have owned for many 100s of years, are using
this greeny front to their own advantage to great effect.  Ever
thought you may be inadvertently be fighting their corner for them?

Common sense, social justice and freedom have to prevail.

Tony Blair came to power saying he was concentrating
on "constitutional matters".  So far he has kicked out of the House
of Lords the parasite hereditary peers - the total wealth of the 66
hereditary ejected Lords, who are predominantly large landowners
owning the equivalent of 4.5 average sized counties, is a whopping
£16 billion.  Blair severed a 800 years landowning link with high
level power.

Next must be the land issue.  There is a very watered down version of
land re-distribution in Scotland to come, so next must be the whole
of the UK in a full blown implementation.  Oh how I wish this for all
and sundry.  Alas the government is appeasing the greeny mob having
instructed further higher densities of home building.  We are on each
others laps as it is, in tiny plots with matchbox gardens in tiny
homes.

I re-iterate. The only way to save the countryside is put people back
it, not keep them out of it.  Put people first.

Most Forcefully Yours






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/