Height of new building

[tony1851]

There is often land available; it's just that the well-heeled in the stockbroker belt next to the green belt, don't want new houses on their doorstep.
They prefer nice views of pretty meadows, and expect the huddled masses to stay in the cities.

I wasn't referring to land in the rest of the UK - there's plenty of it but it's not all is developable.

I was referring to the fact that BAS thinks that people have some kind of rights to live in areas that they can no longer afford to live in just because they might have family or friends living there.

Possibly the reason that areas become expensive, and hence unaffordable for young people wanting to get on the ladder, is to do with the planning system.

Because the system effectively rations land, it pushes up the cost of housing. The Geern Belt was established after WW2 to prevent urban sprawl, but it has somehow become sacrosanct, and acted as a block on development. Naturally, people living on the edge of the Belt want it kept that way, regardless of how many people can't afford homes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How is it?

Because it exacerbates the imbalance in investments between London and other parts of the country. It's part of the mindset which says that if you don't live in London you don't deserve there to be houses for you to live in, trains for you to use, jobs for you to do.

How can they be built if there's no land where they are needed?

You think there's land in London for another 210,000 homes per year?

If that location has reached saturation point then there is no more room at the inn! Move along.

You think that London is less saturated than other parts of the country?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was referring to the fact that BAS thinks that people have some kind of rights to live in areas that they can no longer afford to live in just because they might have family or friends living there.

And you can show where I said that, can you? Or anything which could remotely be construed as such?

We need more houses - that is an inescapable fact.

Building them in London would actually make the affordability problem even worse.

Houses must be built where they are needed. If we don't do that then what happens when the people who need them but can't get them because they are all being built in London are teachers, doctors, nurses, policemen, firefighters, bus and train drivers, binmen, water, sewage, gas and electricity company employees and so on?

How many services and facilities would you be happy to give up so that people providing those services and facilities weren't needed and could be housed somewhere else?