That's bad enough. 10 to 12 times average pay. £270,000 borrowed over 30 years on an interest only mortgage at a 2% rate is a repayment of £450 a month I believe. In order to own the house after 30 years you have to pay an additional £750 a month. So essentially it is around £1200 a month in housing costs alone in Dartford if you've saved up £30,000 deposit and you want to own the property after 30 years. What is the average take home pay?
A 30 year mortgage of 270k at 2% interest rate is £998 a month.
To rent a decent 3 bed in Dartford you'd pay more than £1k a month.
I stand corrected I think. I was thinking about an interest only mortgage and then divided the amount by 30, but I suppose over the years a repayment mortgage goes down. To me the figures are still eye watering as part of the cost of living. I don't know what an annual train ticket into London from Dartford is.
That's bad enough. 10 to 12 times average pay. £270,000 borrowed over 30 years on an interest only mortgage at a 2% rate is a repayment of £450 a month I believe. In order to own the house after 30 years you have to pay an additional £750 a month. So essentially it is around £1200 a month in housing costs alone in Dartford if you've saved up £30,000 deposit and you want to own the property after 30 years. What is the average take home pay?
A 30 year mortgage of 270k at 2% interest rate is £998 a month.
To rent a decent 3 bed in Dartford you'd pay more than £1k a month.
I stand corrected I think. I was thinking about an interest only mortgage and then divided the amount by 30, but I suppose over the years a repayment mortgage goes down. To me the figures are still eye watering as part of the cost of living. I don't know what an annual train ticket into London from Dartford is.
Yer, these days with interest calculated daily it's not so bad.
Think the train ticket is from about £2,600.
It's a difficult one, when I bought my first place the multiplier (to salary) wasn't as bad, but then interest rates were 10%, so the three bed place for 80k, 72k mortgage over 30 years would be £635. I think thats more expensive in 1993 values than 1k in 2020. But of course the deposit was a little easier so evens out a little I guess.
£635 in 1993 inflated to 2019 is over £1300.
Much like when my daughter says she's paid £120 for a pair of trainers I nearly fall off my chair. But then again in 1989 i'd be paying £50+ so in reality I was paying as much or more.
That's bad enough. 10 to 12 times average pay. £270,000 borrowed over 30 years on an interest only mortgage at a 2% rate is a repayment of £450 a month I believe. In order to own the house after 30 years you have to pay an additional £750 a month. So essentially it is around £1200 a month in housing costs alone in Dartford if you've saved up £30,000 deposit and you want to own the property after 30 years. What is the average take home pay?
A 30 year mortgage of 270k at 2% interest rate is £998 a month.
To rent a decent 3 bed in Dartford you'd pay more than £1k a month.
I stand corrected I think. I was thinking about an interest only mortgage and then divided the amount by 30, but I suppose over the years a repayment mortgage goes down. To me the figures are still eye watering as part of the cost of living. I don't know what an annual train ticket into London from Dartford is.
Plum wrote '' Thatcherite crushing'' of social housing. Look at the bottom line of the graph below and decide about the last 30 years of social housing provision.
So you need to delete Thatcherite and insert Blairite or Brownie or.
From Full Fact Org, 7 years ago.
Who built more council houses - Margaret Thatcher or New Labour?
12th Nov 2013
UPDATE: This article has been updated with more information on housing association builds and the timeframe in question.
The lack of affordable housing is a chronic problem - on this, all the political parties are agreed. But when it comes to understanding the cause of the crisis, there's no such consensus.
While Labour has promised that it would double the rate of housebuilding by 2020 (equivalent to some 240,000 homes per year), one of its London Assembly members has argued that the party should "apologise" for its record on affordable housing.
Tom Copley, Labour's housing spokesman in the capital, said that Margaret Thatcher's government had built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour's managed in its entire period in office.
This is correct. The official data shows that the Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years. (If we don't include 2010 - the year when David Cameron became PM - this number drops to 6,510.) Mr Copley has contrasted this figure with the record of Mrs Thatcher's government, which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.
That's bad enough. 10 to 12 times average pay. £270,000 borrowed over 30 years on an interest only mortgage at a 2% rate is a repayment of £450 a month I believe. In order to own the house after 30 years you have to pay an additional £750 a month. So essentially it is around £1200 a month in housing costs alone in Dartford if you've saved up £30,000 deposit and you want to own the property after 30 years. What is the average take home pay?
A 30 year mortgage of 270k at 2% interest rate is £998 a month.
To rent a decent 3 bed in Dartford you'd pay more than £1k a month.
I stand corrected I think. I was thinking about an interest only mortgage and then divided the amount by 30, but I suppose over the years a repayment mortgage goes down. To me the figures are still eye watering as part of the cost of living. I don't know what an annual train ticket into London from Dartford is.
You also need to delete Thatcherite and insert Blairite. From Full Fact Org, 7 years ago.
Who built more council houses - Margaret Thatcher or New Labour?
12th Nov 2013
UPDATE: This article has been updated with more information on housing association builds and the timeframe in question.
The lack of affordable housing is a chronic problem - on this, all the political parties are agreed. But when it comes to understanding the cause of the crisis, there's no such consensus.
While Labour has promised that it would double the rate of housebuilding by 2020 (equivalent to some 240,000 homes per year), one of its London Assembly members has argued that the party should "apologise" for its record on affordable housing.
Tom Copley, Labour's housing spokesman in the capital, said that Margaret Thatcher's government had built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour's managed in its entire period in office.
This is correct. The official data shows that the Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years. (If we don't include 2010 - the year when David Cameron became PM - this number drops to 6,510.) Mr Copley has contrasted this figure with the record of Mrs Thatcher's government, which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.
My Thatcherite reference was about the selling off of council houses and then stopping local authorities from using that money to build more. I wasn't comparing Thatcher with Blair was I?
Will those complaining about the planning decisions by the local authority in Maidstone be out campaigning for the party in charge to be replaced at the next election?
That's bad enough. 10 to 12 times average pay. £270,000 borrowed over 30 years on an interest only mortgage at a 2% rate is a repayment of £450 a month I believe. In order to own the house after 30 years you have to pay an additional £750 a month. So essentially it is around £1200 a month in housing costs alone in Dartford if you've saved up £30,000 deposit and you want to own the property after 30 years. What is the average take home pay?
Not sure on take home but average salary in Dartford is £25K.
All the extra housing on Green fields, most of which is beyond the price of first-time buyers and very little is social housing replacement is down to Cameron and his "Localism Act" which was basically a developers charter. All the green arguments of not flying in asparagus from Israel and growing your own stuff in your local agricultural land got lost on that vile cretin of a man whose only interest was to pander to his blue-rinse supporters (brexit) and fix it for his supporters (housing Developers). If all these hundreds of thousands of new homes were going to the needy then why do they often take years to sell. The worst Prime Minister in my lifetime has got quite a legacy, I hope he rots in his own hell.
Will those complaining about the planning decisions by the local authority in Maidstone be out campaigning for the party in charge to be replaced at the next election?
Both the local Labour and Lib Dem manifestos said they wanted to build more.
Kent has become and is becoming the Patio of England rather than the Garden of England.
I really don't understand this fetish to concrete over our green spaces. Recent events have demonstrated the importance of being able to produce food locally as far as possible.
Southall, Amis and Nimer etc are a microcosm of what has gone wrong with our country in terms of knowing the cost of everything (unless it benefits them of course when it doesn't matter) and the value of nothing.
@MrWalker Full Fact has quite a lot of stuff on there, can we have a link to the actual page please? Also, if the question is "how did more for social housing" that only looks at half the picture, as we also need to know the amount of social housing stock lost due to Right to Buy over the period in question.
Will those complaining about the planning decisions by the local authority in Maidstone be out campaigning for the party in charge to be replaced at the next election?
Both the local Labour and Lib Dem manifestos said they wanted to build more.
Good. Because we need more.
However, if anyone affected is dissatisfied with the decision making of their council, they can always oppose them at the next election.
That's bad enough. 10 to 12 times average pay. £270,000 borrowed over 30 years on an interest only mortgage at a 2% rate is a repayment of £450 a month I believe. In order to own the house after 30 years you have to pay an additional £750 a month. So essentially it is around £1200 a month in housing costs alone in Dartford if you've saved up £30,000 deposit and you want to own the property after 30 years. What is the average take home pay?
Not sure on take home but average salary in Dartford is £25K.
2 people earning £25k each would mean they could get a joint mortgage of around £225k.....maybe £250k depending on existing credit commitments etc.
@MrWalker Full Fact has quite a lot of stuff on there, can we have a link to the actual page please? Also, if the question is "how did more for social housing" that only looks at half the picture, as we also need to know the amount of social housing stock lost due to Right to Buy over the period in question.
Why do you need full referencing? It's fully dated, and the graph is fully referenced. Click on the red words...you will find more links.
What are you running, some left wing library where only the facts you don't like are challenged? It's a discussion board.
Who else have you asked for full references? Seriously, who else?
Thank you for your private messages. Your intention is clear.
@MrWalker Full Fact has quite a lot of stuff on there, can we have a link to the actual page please? Also, if the question is "how did more for social housing" that only looks at half the picture, as we also need to know the amount of social housing stock lost due to Right to Buy over the period in question.
Why do you need full referencing? It's fully dated, and the graph is fully referenced. Click on the red words...you will find more links.
What are you running, some left wing library where only the facts you don't like are challenged? It's a discussion board.
Who else have you asked for full references? Seriously, who else?
Thank you for your private messages. Your intention is clear.
I'm not asking for full referencing dissertation style, simply a link to the actual webpage you are quoting from. It is a courtesy to other users so they can see the quote in the context it was written, and so we don't end up with vast amounts of quotes cluttering up the thread. I've asked several other people for links to things they are quoting, in several different threads, and you are the first to get the hump about it. This is not a political thing, it's a forum usability thing.
If you have an issue with the way I am moderating, please take it up with the other mods.
So @MrWalker we are now at the morning after you said I lied on this thread. I have asked you to back up your comment of yesterday that I lied on this thread. Would you mind pointing out the lie you accuse me of? Surely you're not a hit and run merchant, and you have the ability to substantiate your accusation?
I started this thread in my lunch break yesterday and having spent all day on my computer, decided to take a break last night, so have only just come back to this.
My concern at the massive increase in housing developments in Kent and particularly Maidstone, where I live, is not NIMBYism but concern for the destruction of so many natural habitats and loss of green spaces, which once lost will never be recovered. We mess around with nature at our peril and the recent crisis has shown just how important green spaces are for mental and physical wellbeing. Nature is very important economically as well and I suggest reading a very good book by Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, called 'What nature does for Britain'.
I have posted some links above and one fact I didn't realise is that with a population of approximately 1,568,600, Kent has the largest population of any of the English counties.
In 1998 the population of Maidstone was 93,900 and in mid 2018 it was 170,000 and will be considerably more than that now, if the number of new housing developments built since that date are anything to go by.
Kent’s population has grown at a faster rate than the national average over the last 15 years increasing by +16.3% compared to +12.1% for England. In the last year Kent’s population grew by +0.9% whilst the national average was +0.6%.
You only have to look at the changing skyline of London over the last 35 years, to see that it can accommodate far more people than it used to, due to the proliferation of high rise office buildings and that has massively increased the number of people commuting into the capital, many from Kent.
It doesn't matter which party is in Government, they all want to keep building houses and we're paying for allowing our population to grow so fast in the last 30 years.
We need agricultural land to produce food and importing food which we could grow here, does not help with reducing our carbon footprint. The current crisis has again shown the folly of relying on foreign imports for almost everything.
Maidstone has seen a massive increase in population, but the infrastructure hasn't grown with it and traffic in normal times is dreadful, but if there is a problem on the M20 (which is a very frequently) the whole town becomes clogged. Each new dwelling produces on average, 2 more cars on the already congested roads. The local Lib Dems have a notion of 'modal shift', whereby they think everyone will change to cycling and walking to work. There is no way that is going to happen when people don't live near to where they work.
Two new schools have just been built on land that was originally designated as a nature reserve. It is in a totally unsuitable place on the edge of the Area of Outstanding Beauty and will require most pupils to be driven there. There is a supposedly secure, mental health facility overlooking the schools and which houses paedophiles. A more unsuitable place for a school couldn't be found.
Many developments are being built on flood plains, there is one building site, not far from where I live, which was completely under water a few weeks ago. It is built on an area called the Lilk Meadow, the Lilk being a stream and the name tells you that it is a flood plain.
As @LenGlover stated in an earlier post, Kent is definitely not the Garden of England any more and 'patio' is very good description.
I've answered you. Look at the bottom line on the graph and work out for yourself why what you posted is so patently wrong.
You posted an unverified lie, I posted a verified rebuttal, proving you wrong.
You refused to acknowledge the facts presented or even comment on the facts presented.
A mod then pedantically decided the reference wasn't detailed enough.
You then resort to type and bang on, ignoring the facts. Nothing constructive will come of engaging with you as you ignore facts. I will try not to engage with you further on CL.
I've answered you. Look at the bottom line on the graph and work out for yourself why what you posted is so patently wrong.
You posted an unverified lie, I posted a verified rebuttal, proving you wrong.
You refused to acknowledge the facts presented or even comment on the facts presented.
A mod then pedantically decided the reference wasn't detailed enough.
You then resort to type and bang on, ignoring the facts. Nothing constructive will come of engaging with you as you ignore facts. I will try not to engage with you further on CL.
Total rubbish. You have mixed me up with somebody else. Look at your post of 7.52pm yesterday. You have accused me of lying and you are wrong. No wonder you don't wish to say any more after you have been challenged, it would mean you acknowledging your error.
I hope this doesn't get moved to the political threads as it wasn't intended as a political post, just to express my worries about what is happening in Kent.
I started this thread in my lunch break yesterday and having spent all day on my computer, decided to take a break last night, so have only just come back to this.
My concern at the massive increase in housing developments in Kent and particularly Maidstone, where I live, is not NIMBYism but concern for the destruction of so many natural habitats and loss of green spaces, which once lost will never be recovered. We mess around with nature at our peril and the recent crisis has shown just how important green spaces are for mental and physical wellbeing. Nature is very important economically as well and I suggest reading a very good book by Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, called 'What nature does for Britain'.
I have posted some links above and one fact I didn't realise is that with a population of approximately 1,568,600, Kent has the largest population of any of the English counties.
In 1998 the population of Maidstone was 93,900 and in mid 2018 it was 170,000 and will be considerably more than that now, if the number of new housing developments built since that date are anything to go by.
Kent’s population has grown at a faster rate than the national average over the last 15 years increasing by +16.3% compared to +12.1% for England. In the last year Kent’s population grew by +0.9% whilst the national average was +0.6%.
You only have to look at the changing skyline of London over the last 35 years, to see that it can accommodate far more people than it used to, due to the proliferation of high rise office buildings and that has massively increased the number of people commuting into the capital, many from Kent.
It doesn't matter which party is in Government, they all want to keep building houses and we're paying for allowing our population to grow so fast in the last 30 years.
We need agricultural land to produce food and importing food which we could grow here, does not help with reducing our carbon footprint. The current crisis has again shown the folly of relying on foreign imports for almost everything.
Maidstone has seen a massive increase in population, but the infrastructure hasn't grown with it and traffic in normal times is dreadful, but if there is a problem on the M20 (which is a very frequently) the whole town becomes clogged. Each new dwelling produces on average, 2 more cars on the already congested roads. The local Lib Dems have a notion of 'modal shift', whereby they think everyone will change to cycling and walking to work. There is no way that is going to happen when people don't live near to where they work.
Two new schools have just been built on land that was originally designated as a nature reserve. It is in a totally unsuitable place on the edge of the Area of Outstanding Beauty and will require most pupils to be driven there. There is a supposedly secure, mental health facility overlooking the schools and which houses paedophiles. A more unsuitable place for a school couldn't be found.
Many developments are being built on flood plains, there is one building site, not far from where I live, which was completely under water a few weeks ago. It is built on an area called the Lilk Meadow, the Lilk being a stream and the name tells you that it is a flood plain.
As @LenGlover stated in an earlier post, Kent is definitely not the Garden of England any more and 'patio' is very good description.
So is the answer People like myself who live in a little 3 bed with the wife being forced to downsize to makeway for a family. Limit couple for the next 20 years to one child.
I started this thread in my lunch break yesterday and having spent all day on my computer, decided to take a break last night, so have only just come back to this.
My concern at the massive increase in housing developments in Kent and particularly Maidstone, where I live, is not NIMBYism but concern for the destruction of so many natural habitats and loss of green spaces, which once lost will never be recovered. We mess around with nature at our peril and the recent crisis has shown just how important green spaces are for mental and physical wellbeing. Nature is very important economically as well and I suggest reading a very good book by Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, called 'What nature does for Britain'.
I have posted some links above and one fact I didn't realise is that with a population of approximately 1,568,600, Kent has the largest population of any of the English counties.
In 1998 the population of Maidstone was 93,900 and in mid 2018 it was 170,000 and will be considerably more than that now, if the number of new housing developments built since that date are anything to go by.
Kent’s population has grown at a faster rate than the national average over the last 15 years increasing by +16.3% compared to +12.1% for England. In the last year Kent’s population grew by +0.9% whilst the national average was +0.6%.
You only have to look at the changing skyline of London over the last 35 years, to see that it can accommodate far more people than it used to, due to the proliferation of high rise office buildings and that has massively increased the number of people commuting into the capital, many from Kent.
It doesn't matter which party is in Government, they all want to keep building houses and we're paying for allowing our population to grow so fast in the last 30 years.
We need agricultural land to produce food and importing food which we could grow here, does not help with reducing our carbon footprint. The current crisis has again shown the folly of relying on foreign imports for almost everything.
Maidstone has seen a massive increase in population, but the infrastructure hasn't grown with it and traffic in normal times is dreadful, but if there is a problem on the M20 (which is a very frequently) the whole town becomes clogged. Each new dwelling produces on average, 2 more cars on the already congested roads. The local Lib Dems have a notion of 'modal shift', whereby they think everyone will change to cycling and walking to work. There is no way that is going to happen when people don't live near to where they work.
Two new schools have just been built on land that was originally designated as a nature reserve. It is in a totally unsuitable place on the edge of the Area of Outstanding Beauty and will require most pupils to be driven there. There is a supposedly secure, mental health facility overlooking the schools and which houses paedophiles. A more unsuitable place for a school couldn't be found.
Many developments are being built on flood plains, there is one building site, not far from where I live, which was completely under water a few weeks ago. It is built on an area called the Lilk Meadow, the Lilk being a stream and the name tells you that it is a flood plain.
As @LenGlover stated in an earlier post, Kent is definitely not the Garden of England any more and 'patio' is very good description.
The other option to building on Greenfield land is to build more densely in existing urban areas, i.e. high rise flats. There's a lot to be said for mixed use developments including employment to reduce the need to travel to start with. One thing I would say is modal shift is not the preserve of the lib Dems, it's effectively a planning requirement to try and achieve that of any housing development of any significant size.
The thinking being that there is less and less space available for capacity improvements on the road network over time, and there is such a thing as induced traffic (creating more capacity increases the attractiveness of driving so results in more traffic than was using the route previously) so the long term sustainable option is to discourage everyone from driving. I agree co locating housing and jobs is crucial if that is going to be successful.
The residential parking standards in the new London plan for example are essentially that all resi Dev should be car free (as an aside that's why I don't think vehicle access to the valley is the barrier to redevelopment that it has been touted as).
I think it's only right to have concerns when you see substantial change in the area you live in, but it is not just kent. It is the same across the country, everyone has the same complaints about the traffic in their area regardless of how busy it actually is. I don't mean that to sound dismissive, that's just my experience
I started this thread in my lunch break yesterday and having spent all day on my computer, decided to take a break last night, so have only just come back to this.
My concern at the massive increase in housing developments in Kent and particularly Maidstone, where I live, is not NIMBYism but concern for the destruction of so many natural habitats and loss of green spaces, which once lost will never be recovered. We mess around with nature at our peril and the recent crisis has shown just how important green spaces are for mental and physical wellbeing. Nature is very important economically as well and I suggest reading a very good book by Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, called 'What nature does for Britain'.
I have posted some links above and one fact I didn't realise is that with a population of approximately 1,568,600, Kent has the largest population of any of the English counties.
In 1998 the population of Maidstone was 93,900 and in mid 2018 it was 170,000 and will be considerably more than that now, if the number of new housing developments built since that date are anything to go by.
Kent’s population has grown at a faster rate than the national average over the last 15 years increasing by +16.3% compared to +12.1% for England. In the last year Kent’s population grew by +0.9% whilst the national average was +0.6%.
You only have to look at the changing skyline of London over the last 35 years, to see that it can accommodate far more people than it used to, due to the proliferation of high rise office buildings and that has massively increased the number of people commuting into the capital, many from Kent.
It doesn't matter which party is in Government, they all want to keep building houses and we're paying for allowing our population to grow so fast in the last 30 years.
We need agricultural land to produce food and importing food which we could grow here, does not help with reducing our carbon footprint. The current crisis has again shown the folly of relying on foreign imports for almost everything.
Maidstone has seen a massive increase in population, but the infrastructure hasn't grown with it and traffic in normal times is dreadful, but if there is a problem on the M20 (which is a very frequently) the whole town becomes clogged. Each new dwelling produces on average, 2 more cars on the already congested roads. The local Lib Dems have a notion of 'modal shift', whereby they think everyone will change to cycling and walking to work. There is no way that is going to happen when people don't live near to where they work.
Two new schools have just been built on land that was originally designated as a nature reserve. It is in a totally unsuitable place on the edge of the Area of Outstanding Beauty and will require most pupils to be driven there. There is a supposedly secure, mental health facility overlooking the schools and which houses paedophiles. A more unsuitable place for a school couldn't be found.
Many developments are being built on flood plains, there is one building site, not far from where I live, which was completely under water a few weeks ago. It is built on an area called the Lilk Meadow, the Lilk being a stream and the name tells you that it is a flood plain.
As @LenGlover stated in an earlier post, Kent is definitely not the Garden of England any more and 'patio' is very good description.
The other option to building on Greenfield land is to build more densely in existing urban areas, i.e. high rise flats. There's a lot to be said for mixed use developments including employment to reduce the need to travel to start with. One thing I would say is modal shift is not the preserve of the lib Dems, it's effectively a planning requirement to try and achieve that of any housing development of any significant size.
The thinking being that there is less and less space available for capacity improvements on the road network over time, and there is such a thing as induced traffic (creating more capacity increases the attractiveness of driving so results in more traffic than was using the route previously) so the long term sustainable option is to discourage everyone from driving. I agree co locating housing and jobs is crucial if that is going to be successful.
The residential parking standards in the new London plan for example are essentially that all resi Dev should be car free (as an aside that's why I don't think vehicle access to the valley is the barrier to redevelopment that it has been touted as).
I think it's only right to have concerns when you see substantial change in the area you live in, but it is not just kent. It is the same across the country, everyone has the same complaints about the traffic in their area regardless of how busy it actually is. I don't mean that to sound dismissive, that's just my experience
Limiting car use in London is not so much of a problem, as public transport is good, but that is not the case outside London.
Kent appears to be having more than its fair share of development.
Comments
To me the figures are still eye watering as part of the cost of living.
I don't know what an annual train ticket into London from Dartford is.
Think the train ticket is from about £2,600.
It's a difficult one, when I bought my first place the multiplier (to salary) wasn't as bad, but then interest rates were 10%, so the three bed place for 80k, 72k mortgage over 30 years would be £635. I think thats more expensive in 1993 values than 1k in 2020. But of course the deposit was a little easier so evens out a little I guess.
£635 in 1993 inflated to 2019 is over £1300.
Much like when my daughter says she's paid £120 for a pair of trainers I nearly fall off my chair. But then again in 1989 i'd be paying £50+ so in reality I was paying as much or more.
So you need to delete Thatcherite and insert Blairite or Brownie or.
From Full Fact Org, 7 years ago.
Who built more council houses - Margaret Thatcher or New Labour?
12th Nov 2013
UPDATE: This article has been updated with more information on housing association builds and the timeframe in question.
The lack of affordable housing is a chronic problem - on this, all the political parties are agreed. But when it comes to understanding the cause of the crisis, there's no such consensus.
While Labour has promised that it would double the rate of housebuilding by 2020 (equivalent to some 240,000 homes per year), one of its London Assembly members has argued that the party should "apologise" for its record on affordable housing.
Tom Copley, Labour's housing spokesman in the capital, said that Margaret Thatcher's government had built more council flats and houses in a single year than New Labour's managed in its entire period in office.
This is correct. The official data shows that the Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years. (If we don't include 2010 - the year when David Cameron became PM - this number drops to 6,510.) Mr Copley has contrasted this figure with the record of Mrs Thatcher's government, which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.
I wasn't comparing Thatcher with Blair was I?
The answer completely negates your statement/lie
I really don't understand this fetish to concrete over our green spaces. Recent events have demonstrated the importance of being able to produce food locally as far as possible.
Southall, Amis and Nimer etc are a microcosm of what has gone wrong with our country in terms of knowing the cost of everything (unless it benefits them of course when it doesn't matter) and the value of nothing.
However, if anyone affected is dissatisfied with the decision making of their council, they can always oppose them at the next election.
It's fully dated, and the graph is fully referenced.
Click on the red words...you will find more links.
What are you running, some left wing library where only the facts you don't like are challenged? It's a discussion board.
Who else have you asked for full references? Seriously, who else?
Thank you for your private messages. Your intention is clear.
Would you mind pointing out the lie?
I have asked you to back up your comment of yesterday that I lied on this thread. Would you mind pointing out the lie you accuse me of?
Surely you're not a hit and run merchant, and you have the ability to substantiate your accusation?
https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/information-and-data/Facts-and-figures-about-Kent/summary-of-kent-facts-and-figures#tab-2
https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/8149/Whats-causing-Kents-population-growth.pdf
I started this thread in my lunch break yesterday and having spent all day on my computer, decided to take a break last night, so have only just come back to this.
My concern at the massive increase in housing developments in Kent and particularly Maidstone, where I live, is not NIMBYism but concern for the destruction of so many natural habitats and loss of green spaces, which once lost will never be recovered. We mess around with nature at our peril and the recent crisis has shown just how important green spaces are for mental and physical wellbeing. Nature is very important economically as well and I suggest reading a very good book by Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, called 'What nature does for Britain'.
I have posted some links above and one fact I didn't realise is that with a population of approximately 1,568,600, Kent has the largest population of any of the English counties.
In 1998 the population of Maidstone was 93,900 and in mid 2018 it was 170,000 and will be considerably more than that now, if the number of new housing developments built since that date are anything to go by.
Kent’s population has grown at a faster rate than the national average over the last 15 years increasing by +16.3% compared to +12.1% for England. In the last year Kent’s population grew by +0.9% whilst the national average was +0.6%.
You only have to look at the changing skyline of London over the last 35 years, to see that it can accommodate far more people than it used to, due to the proliferation of high rise office buildings and that has massively increased the number of people commuting into the capital, many from Kent.
It doesn't matter which party is in Government, they all want to keep building houses and we're paying for allowing our population to grow so fast in the last 30 years.
We need agricultural land to produce food and importing food which we could grow here, does not help with reducing our carbon footprint. The current crisis has again shown the folly of relying on foreign imports for almost everything.
Maidstone has seen a massive increase in population, but the infrastructure hasn't grown with it and traffic in normal times is dreadful, but if there is a problem on the M20 (which is a very frequently) the whole town becomes clogged. Each new dwelling produces on average, 2 more cars on the already congested roads. The local Lib Dems have a notion of 'modal shift', whereby they think everyone will change to cycling and walking to work. There is no way that is going to happen when people don't live near to where they work.
Two new schools have just been built on land that was originally designated as a nature reserve. It is in a totally unsuitable place on the edge of the Area of Outstanding Beauty and will require most pupils to be driven there. There is a supposedly secure, mental health facility overlooking the schools and which houses paedophiles. A more unsuitable place for a school couldn't be found.
Many developments are being built on flood plains, there is one building site, not far from where I live, which was completely under water a few weeks ago. It is built on an area called the Lilk Meadow, the Lilk being a stream and the name tells you that it is a flood plain.
As @LenGlover stated in an earlier post, Kent is definitely not the Garden of England any more and 'patio' is very good description.
Look at the bottom line on the graph and work out for yourself why what you posted is so patently wrong.
You posted an unverified lie, I posted a verified rebuttal, proving you wrong.
You refused to acknowledge the facts presented or even comment on the facts presented.
A mod then pedantically decided the reference wasn't detailed enough.
You then resort to type and bang on, ignoring the facts. Nothing constructive will come of engaging with you as you ignore facts. I will try not to engage with you further on CL.
You have mixed me up with somebody else.
Look at your post of 7.52pm yesterday.
You have accused me of lying and you are wrong.
No wonder you don't wish to say any more after you have been challenged, it would mean you acknowledging your error.
So is the answer
People like myself who live in a little 3 bed with the wife being forced to downsize to makeway for a family.
Limit couple for the next 20 years to one child.
The thinking being that there is less and less space available for capacity improvements on the road network over time, and there is such a thing as induced traffic (creating more capacity increases the attractiveness of driving so results in more traffic than was using the route previously) so the long term sustainable option is to discourage everyone from driving. I agree co locating housing and jobs is crucial if that is going to be successful.
The residential parking standards in the new London plan for example are essentially that all resi Dev should be car free (as an aside that's why I don't think vehicle access to the valley is the barrier to redevelopment that it has been touted as).
I think it's only right to have concerns when you see substantial change in the area you live in, but it is not just kent. It is the same across the country, everyone has the same complaints about the traffic in their area regardless of how busy it actually is. I don't mean that to sound dismissive, that's just my experience
Kent appears to be having more than its fair share of development.