Let's keep building until we have nothing left.

#41
Unfettered breeding has been espoused by several religious groups and is also the cultural norm across the Indian sub-continental area and the large majority of African nations. None makes even the slightest attempt at population control and indeed Anjem Chaudhary (one of several) espouses the deliberate population increase of muslims to overpower the white Christian nations.
you've managed to distill a complex, multi layered, multi cultural, socio-economic, political and environmentally driven global issue into.....

BROWN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO OVERRUN US :mrgreen::mrgreen:

next stop, Mohamed is the most popular boys name in the UK this year
 
#42
#44
Pie in the sky thinking

16 million have less than 100 pounds savings

The majority either live in their savings (house) or are spending the majority of their wages on rent

UK rent spending
Well they arent likely to buy on a greenfield site either are they?

From your link.

However, the research also showed that some people on low incomes do save money.

Roughly a quarter of adults with household incomes below £13,500 have more than £1,000 in savings.

And 40% of people in that income bracket manage to save something every month.

At least some people try to better themselves.
 
#45
Well they arent likely to buy on a greenfield site either are they?

From your link.

However, the research also showed that some people on low incomes do save money.

Roughly a quarter of adults with household incomes below £13,500 have more than £1,000 in savings.

And 40% of people in that income bracket manage to save something every month.

At least some people try to better themselves.
Well that's grand
 
#46
I'm a neo-malthusian. I backed this up by getting a vasectomy. I've not met anyone else with that level of commitment to not producing wailing little consumer ********* to continue to eat the planet.

Unfortunately I believe our current economic system only works when you shovel new consumers in the front end.

I'm all for the soylent approach to ageing, without the cannibalism but old people who have worked all their lives want some sort of payback for their labours and this involves keeping the useless pissing, shitting, window lickers alive at extortionate cost to society.
Perhaps if the population had more meaningful and fuller lives rather than getting thrashed for 40+ hours a week for 45 years just to put a roof over their heads and go to Tenerife for two weeks every year they would more willingly check out early and stop being such a ******* burden

reference national parks. Thats the biggest red herring ever. The UK is full of space, unfortunately on an urban level the newly retired sitting on their edge of urban, bought and paid for houses (A process started when house prices were in the tens of thousands not 100s) aren't happy about having their views blighted and corgi walking fields taken away from them.
Newly retired have plenty of time to oppose development and the vast % of planning committees consist of conservative thinking nimby pensioners happy to chin off developments.

I await the population rebalancing zombie ebola plague to rush across the face of the planet. You can't argue with mother nature/ecosystem dynamics
I thank you and thoroughly approve of your decision not to bring children into this world.
 
#48
Not that hoary old myth! People who propagate that old chestnut are usually remoaners, and do not wish this country well.
if you are going to post, say something, anything. I'm happy top discuss and have my mind changed but not by weak, nonsense hackneyed platitudes

I'll even give you your own website to read and reference points from

Migration watch UK
 
#49
Environmental assessors are easily bought. I know this for fact as I have had the misfortune to work with several who will skew the results to favour the person who pays on the basis that they will get paid to do the next whitewash.
The environmental "industry" are the second biggest bunch of shysters after the property developers and most are a shower of parasites.
Oi! I resemble that remark.

I’d be interested in any evidence that that’s the case, as would the ‘assessor’s’ professional bodies. Makes a change from developers complaining that we all just make stuff up to sap their profits I suppose.
 
#50
if you are going to post, say something, anything. I'm happy top discuss and have my mind changed but not by weak, nonsense hackneyed platitudes

I'll even give you your own website to read and reference points from

Migration watch UK
This Migration watch?

In a paper it says “extends” research from University College London, the anti mass-migration pressure group says the Treasury spent more in 2014/15 on public services for recent EEA immigrants than they paid in taxes. The original research found that EEA immigrants in the UK paid made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion between 1995 and 2011.

Migration Watch says that it made “some slight differences in assumptions”. If you undo these changes and stick to UCL’s methodology, the Migration Watch paper actually shows that EEA migrants made a positive contribution.

Migration Watch distort UCL research
 
#51
Howe Barracks is prime land, just a pity it has some listed buildings on it….Funnily enough Winston Barracks lay derelict for years before sold off cheaply.
For those unaware of either location.
First families move into barracks
Howe Barracks' vendors sold public short by up to £4.2 billion | The Canterbury Journal
Council accuses MoD over former army homes left vandalised and empty | The Canterbury Journal


I note from the article, the properties being ex Army SFA have road names after various battles we won, nothing strange about that to readers of arrse. However, I wonder how long will it be before the new occupants and various camp followers of social workers, community spokespersons and the like will complain about these imperialist, colonial and glorifying war names and want them changed? I think we can all imagine what the alternative names could be!
 
#54
Nicked from another forum but relevant.

“It is the loss of green space that will never be recoverable in what seems to me to be a builders’ free for all that concerns me.”

That's because of a number of reasons;

  • Population growth – towns/villages need to grow to get more people housed. Brownfield, if available, cannot cope with the numbers needed.

  • Greenfield sites are, generally, cheaper to build on than brownfield sites. There are around 30 acres off Fosse Road, Leicester that has been empty for years after factories were demolished, no builder has come forward to build on it as the land still has a price that is more than a similar greenfield site would be.

  • Greenfield sites are far easier to work on, and much, much easier to sell. The benefit of greenfield for the builders is larger sites, allowing more houses on one site, access at any time, plan what they want in that field rather than being stuck in the footprint of an old factory, easier deliveries, easy parking for staff, brand new water/electric/gas services that do not need the old roads dug up disrupting the neighborhood for weeks. Security. Easy to secure, so safe to leave materials out, and finished houses are unlikely to be broken into.

  • Loads more reasons. Brownfield is difficult to work with. Fine for student flats, difficult for family houses, so greenfield wins every time for builders, and the consumers who buy new build houses before they are built. We’ve been building for 300 years now, it isn't going to stop, as our population is growing. Stop the breeding, and you’ll stop much housing development.
 
Last edited:

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#55
Plenty of people do it, even those without much money. Its just that some people seem to consider its their right to hand over some money (preferably as little as possible) and have someone else do all the graft.

Why should big companies be forced to build on brown field site when individuals clearly cant be arsed?

If they have to add 15% social housing they will just pass the cost on to the customer.
Don't forget, the majority of brownfield is owned by a private company, lots are often owned by the major developers who won't do anything with it.

You also generally speaking, can't get a mortgage on a house that doesn't exist. Hence you why the vast majority of people take out a loan to buy one.

It's just not a realistic not feasible solution to tell everyone to build their own home.

It'd also clash with layers of guidance, regulation and planning constraints such as Council Local Improvement Plans, etc.
 
#56
Oi! I resemble that remark.

I’d be interested in any evidence that that’s the case, as would the ‘assessor’s’ professional bodies. Makes a change from developers complaining that we all just make stuff up to sap their profits I suppose.
I occasionally work with a large environmental consultancy and I personally know several of their directors and lower level consultancy staff. I was made aware that they (the consultancy) would always put a favourable slant on for their clients short of actual lying - or not depending on the level of distortion of the truth.

I can only give you anecdotal evidence but a very nice small field in our village received planning permission for 30 houses a few years ago. Permission was given because it was classified as "low grade farmland" despite having been in productive use up until 2 years before the planning permission.

The environmental consultancy involved had classified the land as "marginally productive" and "poor quality" (I read their report), and despite over 100 local objections planning permission was granted for a development that would be more in keeping with suburban Liverpool than rural Cheshire.
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#57
Nicked from another forum but relevant;

“It is the loss of green space that will never be recoverable in what seems to me to be a builders’ free for all that concerns me.”

That's because of a number of reasons.

Population growth – towns/villages need to grow to get more people housed. Brownfield, if available, cannot cope with the numbers needed.

Greenfield sites are, generally, cheaper to build on than brownfield sites. There are around 30 acres off Fosse Road, Leicester that has been empty for years after factories were demolished, no builder has come forward to build on it as the land still has a price that is more than a similar greenfield site would be.

Greenfield sites are far easier to work on, and much, much easier to sell. The benefit of greenfield for the builders is larger sites, allowing more houses on one site, access at any time, plan what they want in that field rather than being stuck in the footprint of an old factory, easier deliveries, easy parking for staff, brand new water/electric/gas services that do not need the old roads dug up disrupting the neighborhood for weeks. Security. Easy to secure, so safe to leave materials out, and finished houses are unlikely to be broken into.

Loads more reasons. Brownfield is difficult to work with. Fine for student flats, difficult for family houses, so greenfield wins every time for builders, and the consumers who buy new build houses before they are built. We’ve been building for 300 years now, it isn't going to stop, as our population is growing. Stop the breeding, and you’ll stop much housing development.
Yes and no. Depends where the site is. A brownfield that's been dormant for decades in the north west of Glasgow has finally been developed and is filled with houses up to £600k, averaging around £450k.

Depends on the area, but where the area rates high in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivations for example, the government should consider subsiding the build costs for affordable apartments. Not everyone needs or wants a house, many just want an apartment which brownfield is much better for
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#58
I occasionally work with a large environmental consultancy and I personally know several of their directors and lower level consultancy staff. I was made aware that they (the consultancy) would always put a favourable slant on for their clients short of actual lying - or not depending on the level of distortion of the truth.

I can only give you anecdotal evidence but a very nice small field in our village received planning permission for 30 houses a few years ago. Permission was given because it was classified as "low grade farmland" despite having been in productive use up until 2 years before the planning permission.

The environmental consultancy involved had classified the land as "marginally productive" and "poor quality" (I read their report), and despite over 100 local objections planning permission was granted for a development that would be more in keeping with suburban Liverpool than rural Cheshire.
Common practice. When Cala wanted the woods behind us for a bespoke development, they had to conduct various reviews including bats.

It came back saying 'No noticeable bat habitation'.

Interesting.

Every night there are dozens of them flying around, clearly visible, or audible, and we got an alternate report commissioned that destroyed the previous findings.

The people who write these reports will give the person paying for it what they want, or as close as they can without committing fraud. I mean, if your main income source is these big developers, are you really not going to give them what they want?
 
#59
Despite decades of China's one child policy China has the largest population in the world. It's not because Chinese men are all studs and it's not because all their women are super sexy. It's because their condoms are Made in China.
 
#60
Don't forget, the majority of brownfield is owned by a private company, lots are often owned by the major developers who won't do anything with it.

You also generally speaking, can't get a mortgage on a house that doesn't exist. Hence you why the vast majority of people take out a loan to buy one.

It's just not a realistic not feasible solution to tell everyone to build their own home.

It'd also clash with layers of guidance, regulation and planning constraints such as Council Local Improvement Plans, etc.
As I said lots of people do it. How do they manage? We can all make excuse for not being bothered.
You are right that it is not for everyone but then neither is buying a 5 bedroomed detached house in Mayfair.
People just can't be bothered, despite the fact it can be cheaper (very much cheaper if you have some building skills of your own).
Should people build their own homes?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top