On 2014-04-05 21:40:35 +0000, Bob Hobden said:

"kay" wrote
In my area, a high proportion of the development is planned to be on the
green belt, development on brownfield land has all but ceased (it's
cheaper to build on fields), and nationally there is a large pool of
totally unoccupied property.

Despite the national shortage of smaller cheaper properties, most
development is of "executive homes" - don't cost much more to build but
greater proportional profits.

If all we protect are National Parks, what proportion of the population
live near enough to one to benefit regularly from enjoyment of the
natural environment?

If we keep building outwards from cities on to agricultural land, what
prospect do we ever have of being less reliant on imported food?

I'm not giving any answers - there wouldn't be so much argument if there
were easy answers.


Considering the number of people with two or more homes, you can only
live in one at a time, if they made it very expensive to have two homes
then maybe a lot would come onto the market. If you travel around, say,
Hampshire you will come across villages that are all but deserted
during the week but on Friday evening all the London crowd arrive for
just two days. It's the also the main reason the pubs and shops close
down, no locals.

Try Salcombe in winter. ;-(
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk