Based on the 2.27% just moving to cover 3.5% would provide almost double the amount of housing that we have now assuming that we see sense and start building upwards as well. Modern 7 or 10 storey housing blocks have a lot going for them if part of the design includes social areas. A top floor community centre run by the residents for instance.

What percentages don't show, is the human element. The impact on peoples' well being. The visual impact. But we would get used to it, but what would we do then when we have enough houses?

2.27% is what percentage has been built on. If you remove roads, industrial estates, etc etc, the percentage given over to actual housing is nearer 0.9%. Yet how many times are we told (by some newspapers at least) "the U.K. is full" ..."we can't take anymore"..."our island is overcrowded" etc etc... Those claims all look a bit scaremonger-y when compared to the actual figures.

No doubt that was the reason for what would have been a very expensive survey. The proof that we can build on our greenfield sites without spoiling our green and pleasant land.

Can Newbury take any more cars on its roads, can the schools take any more pupils or the doctors surgery and hospital more patients?

Not particularly, no, but there's ample space to build more roads, schools, surgeries, and hospitals, and local government taxes the **** out of new-build so there's no good reason for it not to happen.

For cars, yes it could take more; particularly if we invested in decent public transport. A bigger residential population would support that market.. We could make a start now on that one, properly integrating the Vodafone service.

The schools we already have can be expanded quite easily. Particularly as they all occupy large sites and are all housed in low rise buildings. Similarly with the Hospital - the site and buildings can support significant expansion.

So again, with some thoughtful planning, we can quite easily support a large population increase without increasing the land take for services. However, the need is for careful planning rather than knee jerk politicking.

Whos been selling of the school grounds for housing and such

Do you think we have any chance of that from WBC,

Ahhh! Now there's something we haven't done since WW2!

But I ask again, where does it all stop?
There are now over 7 billion people on earth - frightening!

How do these percentages compare with other European counties I wonder? I'm always cynical about taking hard figures (percentage of land that is developed) to represent something that has a more subjective definition (we are overdeveloped/congested).

I suppose the answer depends on what you mean by 'all'. Do you mean house building? factory building? or do you think "we're full" and just can't take anymore births?

The text you missed out seems to suggest the planet's population.

True, but in his previous posts he had spoken of greenfield sites, our homeless etc...

The O.P.was about our housing crisis, so it seemed best to ask the question based on that. (since it appeared he was talking about our national problems)

Although his earlier post makes no sense, as it would be immossible to dig one's head into some sand and carry on anywhere.

Given the number of doom and gloom reports about the number new homes we are said to need and the state of the construction industry, the original OP asked if apparent inaction was because the Government is more interested in keeping prices and rents high. The straight answer to that is no; the Government itself has no vested interest in keeping house prices or rents high.

Why then is there inaction? That is where real politics come into play.

Of course, we can solve the housing demand at a stroke; just build more. So then, is that what 'we' want? So what's the maximum number? Arguably, in an unconstrained world, the maximum is the number capable of accommodating a population that the remaining land mass can sustain. The result might not be pleasant, but as I see it, that's the answer.

If we don't like that, then we are going to need some careful thought here rather than solutions that only solve 'my' problem! Options include:-
- enforce population control (as China)
- innovative and better exploitation of existing usage and infrastructure
- properly manage land usage

Means thinking we instead of me. So back to Sandleford. If we don't want to use this land, where will the proposed dwellings go instead?

None of the big three parties would dare implement a policy that would knowingly devalue private housing by the amount that is needed. They would be out of office by the next election.


I think the root answer is that no one (government, banks, developers) are confident that people could afford them once they are built.

To some extent agree - but it isn't the Government keeping prices 'high' - whatever high may be. In some places, prices are dropping and have been for some time. Certainly in the north and parts of the south west. That no one is willing to pay the price to own property is market forces at work; most people who need one can find themselves somewhere to live.