|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 7, 2024 18:26:41 GMT
Don’t forget that a huge swathe of land is being put by to use as solar farms . There are many thousand of acres in Breckland Norfolk alone . It could well be a ploy to get farmers to sell up, either for solar farms or housing development, they think they are clever but like everything that Labour touches it turns to dust, just like this will. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 7, 2024 18:32:52 GMT
Perhaps it might help Zany to look at somewhere quite close to home, the proposed new town at Northstowe near Cambridge. According to the official blurb that development will end up requiring 540 hectares of land for 10,000 houses and 26,000 people. Now all we need to know is how much arable land or grey land is actually available and how many people will need housing, assuming no more arrive and that ethnic birthrates fall below replacement levels. Dodgy assumptions but let's proceed on that basis anyway. Over to you Zany. That's approximately 2 square miles for 26,000 people. Though It does include a considerable area of parkland for them to enjoy. So 13,000 people per square mile. 700,000 people equals 54 square miles (rounded up) England equals 54,000 square miles. So 54 square miles is 0.1% Or if you say of the 11% currently built on then 1% |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 7, 2024 18:34:23 GMT
Don’t forget that a huge swathe of land is being put by to use as solar farms . There are many thousand of acres in Breckland Norfolk alone . In real terms its tiny Bentley. 0.1% is solar farms, with a target of 0.3% |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 7, 2024 18:35:38 GMT
Yes. If you limit the land that has planning permission you force the price up on the land that does. What do you think would happen to the price of building land if they removed the need for planning permission at all. It would fall to the same price as arable land. Yes, but we still need arable land. Building on every available square metre is not viable. 1% is not every available square metre |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 7, 2024 18:40:33 GMT
If you cannot get planning permission the price of the land is an irrelevance. Slow down and think for once. Yes. If you limit the land that has planning permission you force the price up on the land that does. What do you think would happen to the price of building land if they removed the need for planning permission at all. It would fall to the same price as arable land. Changing the planning system and the price of land does not increase the supply of skilled workers or supplies - we only have the capacity to build around 200,000 homes a year. Lets say we scrap all planning restrictions - who is going to build the extra houses you think are waiting in the wings?. Please don't say that we can import workers as Building Trades are already on the skilled visa list so any construction worker from overseas who wants a job in this country can already get one. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 7, 2024 18:44:15 GMT
Don’t forget that a huge swathe of land is being put by to use as solar farms . There are many thousand of acres in Breckland Norfolk alone . That's why Labour want to get rid of farmers. They want their land for wind/solar farms. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 7, 2024 18:46:04 GMT
So the government will buy up acres upon acres of farmers land to built their solar farms, then some tech company will come along with a revolutionary energy saving brainchild, then the land they have purchased will be worthless, masses of useless solar farms lying there going rusty, so the tax payers will yet again be burdened with the huge loss, you don't need a crystal ball to see where this is all heading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Nov 7, 2024 19:08:25 GMT
So the government will buy up acres upon acres of farmers land to built their solar farms, then some tech company will come along with a revolutionary energy saving brainchild, then the land they have purchased will be worthless, masses of useless solar farms lying there going rusty, so the tax payers will yet again be burdened with the huge loss, you don't need a crystal ball to see where this is all heading. n o all you need is a wild imaginenation like you got |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 7, 2024 19:28:12 GMT
Sorry folks off out now. Speak later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 7, 2024 19:32:31 GMT
Don’t forget that a huge swathe of land is being put by to use as solar farms . There are many thousand of acres in Breckland Norfolk alone . In real terms it’s tiny Bentley. 0.1% is solar farms, with a target of 0.3% In real terms 0.3 % is a huge swath of land . I’m not against it as such but it can’t be written off as irrelevant . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 7, 2024 19:39:23 GMT
Don’t forget that a huge swathe of land is being put by to use as solar farms . There are many thousand of acres in Breckland Norfolk alone . That's why Labour want to get rid of farmers. They want their land for wind/solar farms. Funny you should say that but there are a lot of farmers around here and one of them ( a councillor afaik) that lives near me owns some of the land that the proposed solar farm is going to be built on . He is getting stick for going along with it ..but …he reckons that farming pays shit money and I believe him . He will get a fee or rent first leasing the land and that will help the family pay the bills . Its a bit of an insight living in the hayseeds . As for the inheritance tax , it’s going to shaft a lot of farming families . |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 7, 2024 19:42:28 GMT
Perhaps it might help Zany to look at somewhere quite close to home, the proposed new town at Northstowe near Cambridge. According to the official blurb that development will end up requiring 540 hectares of land for 10,000 houses and 26,000 people. Now all we need to know is how much arable land or grey land is actually available and how many people will need housing, assuming no more arrive and that ethnic birthrates fall below replacement levels. Dodgy assumptions but let's proceed on that basis anyway. Over to you Zany. That's approximately 2 square miles for 26,000 people. Though It does include a considerable area of parkland for them to enjoy. So 13,000 people per square mile. 700,000 people equals 54 square miles (rounded up) England equals 54,000 square miles. So 54 square miles is 0.1% Or if you say of the 11% currently built on then 1% That trundling sound we hear must be Zany moving the goalposts.
I thought we were talking about arable land - or grey land, whatever that is. And where does the 700,000 figure come from for more people who need housing? Two or three times as many as that have arrived since the last census.
Labour is saying there is a need for 1.5 million new houses. At 2.6 per dwelling that works out to close to 4 million people, not 700,00o.
Back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 7, 2024 19:46:51 GMT
Perhaps it might help Zany to look at somewhere quite close to home, the proposed new town at Northstowe near Cambridge. According to the official blurb that development will end up requiring 540 hectares of land for 10,000 houses and 26,000 people. Now all we need to know is how much arable land or grey land is actually available and how many people will need housing, assuming no more arrive and that ethnic birthrates fall below replacement levels. Dodgy assumptions but let's proceed on that basis anyway. Over to you Zany. That's approximately 2 square miles for 26,000 people. Though It does include a considerable area of parkland for them to enjoy. So 13,000 people per square mile. 700,000 people equals 54 square miles (rounded up) England equals 54,000 square miles. So 54 square miles is 0.1% Or if you say of the 11% currently built on then 1% About half of that 54,000 sq miles is classed as upland and mountain and moorland. All the big cities and densely populated areas lie below the 700ft contour. The population above the 700ft contour is pretty sparse. Having lived for several years above 1000ft I can confirm that the old saying of 9 months winter and 3 months bad weather is very true. So you possibly only have around 28,000 sq miles to play with which at an estimate is about 20% built on. Most of the arable land lies below 700ft so it will be arable land (or brown field) that will have the most demand on it as all the green belt areas surround the cities which all lie below the 700ft contour. Bradford has an area that is close to the 1000ft but the 'green belt' beyond is upland and developers do not want it. When you think of Bradford balmy summers is not a picture that springs to mind. All the demand will be in the South and East. London has an average density of approx 14500 people per sq mile and there is some pretty horrendous overcrowding in some areas. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 7, 2024 19:53:55 GMT
So the government will buy up acres upon acres of farmers land to built their solar farms, then some tech company will come along with a revolutionary energy saving brainchild, then the land they have purchased will be worthless, masses of useless solar farms lying there going rusty, so the tax payers will yet again be burdened with the huge loss, you don't need a crystal ball to see where this is all heading. n o all you need is a wild imaginenation like you got As we post Elon Musk is working on such projects, if he hits this market literally the sky is the limit for him, the day is dawning when some tech giant like Musk will crack the energy renewable market, but not before the Labour government and Ed Case wastes billions on energy farm flops, we will end up with acres upon acres of unused solar farms, and the government will have to sell that land off for buttons ..... this inept Labour government is the worst in History, they are on course to bankrupt the UK before they serve 12 months. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Nov 7, 2024 20:35:27 GMT
rubbish
|
|
