What's so great about Old Buildings?

[pablo42]

NO! NO! NO! (Well ok, maybe Max Bygraves)

I actually had doubts about Max Bygraves, he was quite good.

[petromax]

I actually had doubts about Max Bygraves, he was quite good.

"Yooo need 'ands, to 'owuld a li'ul babee", ah, Gary Sprake where are you now?

[pablo42]

"Yooo need 'ands, to 'owuld a li'ul babee", ah, Gary Sprake where are you now?

Love it PM. You have gotta sense of humour. Your turn WW, nice big smile.

[Spike]

Buy him a pie

[pablo42]

Buy him a pie

Already done Spike.

[Waterways]

Yep, I had a quick skim - couldn't see anything on total land use

You read sweet nothing as usual.. It was there very plainly.

DATA ON LAND USAGE

The land cover of Great Britain is 23.5m hectares. Taken from the Office of National Statistics, in 2002, usage was as follows:

• Settled land - 1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass.
• Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass.
• Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m hectares. 29.78% of the land mass.
• Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass
• Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass.
• Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of the land mass.

Note 1:

Many question the accuracy of the above figures as government departments present differing figures. Nevertheless the figures are a good guide.

Note 2:

The settled land figure includes gardens and other green spaces, which are estimated at around 5%. When adjusted a figure of only 2.5% of paved land emerges.

However, I did notice from the Office of National Statistics (a reasonably creditable source) or whatever it is they call themselves these days, that the density of dwellings in Westminster (a very nice place) is only half that of Tower Hamlets

Westminster is a city in name, but a district in nature - I have a place there. A lot of it is commercial property in the West End.

[Waterways]

But none of them yours apparently, including your declaration that the city was allowing tall buildings in the south.

It was clear tall buildings would be around Brunswick Dock. If one councillor changed back to Labour, then they would be in power. Then the developers could resubmit.

There is no hope for you if you think a so-called one-minute, plagiarist wonder like Simpson

He is still at it.....

Best you read the articles in PW.

[Waterways]

Love it PM. You have gotta sense of humour. Your turn WW, nice big smile.

Gary Sprake? That was Dez O'Conner, anuver Cockney. Wiv aught me barra me auld cock-sparra.

[Waterways]

Buy him a pie

Yes, a Cockney eel pie. Oh yummy indeed!

[Spike]

Blow me down you where almost funny there

[pablo42]

Gary Sprake? That was Dez O'Conner, anuver Cockney. Wiv aught me barra me auld cock-sparra.

Nice one WW, love it.

[petromax]

What does 'buy him a pie' mean?

[petromax]

Gary Sprake? That was Dez O'Conner, anuver Cockney. Wiv aught me barra me auld cock-sparra.

Yes. Careless Hands but it didn't fit.

[petromax]

You read sweet nothing as usual.. It was there very plainly.

DATA ON LAND USAGE

The land cover of Great Britain is 23.5m hectares. Taken from the Office of National Statistics, in 2002, usage was as follows:

• Settled land - 1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass.
• Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass.
• Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m hectares. 29.78% of the land mass.
• Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass
• Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass.
• Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of the land mass.

...

Westminster is a city in name, but a district in nature - I have a place there. A lot of it is commercial property in the West End.

Taking the above figures as read, the assumption that agricultural land is there for the taking is not at all valid - ALL the land does something. If the amount of land available for agriculture is decreased, naturally enough the productivity of the remaining land and/or carbon-heavy food imports must increase; thus reversing a trend not seen since the demise of the worst bits of the CAP and a return to high fertilizer use, associated increased cost and environmental damage; to name but a few of the many disadvantages.

However there are 62,700 hectares (at the last count) of underutilised or empty 'previously developed' land within the settled land figure. If redeveloped at the residential density of Westminster or Hackney (for example and not an unpleasantly dense standard and by no means slum areas), there is space for a growth of population up to just over 18 million (work it out - 148 new dwellings per hectare and an average two occupants per dwelling).

A better place to start than extending travel time burning up fossil fuel either in the car or centrally (for trains), gobbling up agricultural land and taking us back to 70s and 80s food standards.

Unfortunately further increases in population will generate more pressure on agricultural land to produce more decent food but we have a long way to go before we reach anything like slum densities in our cities (take a peek at Caracas).

BTW Commercial properties in the West End have no effect at all on residential density

[Waterways]

Taking the above figures as read, the assumption that agricultural land is there for the taking is not at all valid - ALL the land does something. If the amount of land available for agriculture is decreased, naturally enough the productivity of the remaining land and/or carbon-heavy food imports must increase; thus reversing a trend not seen since the demise of the worst bits of the CAP and a return to high fertilizer use, associated increased cost and environmental damage; to name but a few of the many disadvantages.

You do not read do you? Or can't you focus more than a few sentences? Using Westminster as some sort of yardstick is bordering on silly.

If we want to decrease the carbon footprint we go to tidal lagoons or... the dreaded nuclear and use electric trains more and electric transit system in towns and cities. Switzerland has 100% electric trains, the UK has one of the the least electric train systems in the EU.

We need agricultural land to be self-sufficient ?
Britain has one of the highest proportions of land
given over to agriculture in the world, and we produce
agricultural surpluses. We are fully integrated in the
world economy and rely on imports for almost everything,
especially energy ? being self-sufficient in food
alone is pointless.

A Poor Performing Industry

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts for about 2.5% 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 spacious higher quality homes for the population. 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.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country dwellers in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime function.

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 British 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, and especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of 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 certainly could be put to better use for the population of the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower house prices which the UK desperately needs. Second country homes could be within reach of much of the population, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and construction industries, and keeping the population in touch with the nature of their own country. In Germany the population have access to a large forests which are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned over to public forests.