Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is the UK full? Population to be 70 million before 2030 watch

  • View Poll Results: Is the UK full?
    Yes
    50.00%
    No
    50.00%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redwoods)
    A higher population means that more schools, hospitals, roads, and houses will need to be built. Those who do not oppose immigration, do you care about the green space we have in this country. Why do we have to reach saturation point with immigration where we all will have a lower quality of life and where everywhere is grey?
    I, for one, don't have a problem in that area at all. Depending on how you measure it, somewhere between 2% and 6% of Britain is built upon. As has been touched on previously, we have the highest proportion of our land turned over to woodland since records began in the 1920s.

    We also have a lot of fairly useless land, and land that previously had agricultural functions that have become redundant. Our so-called "greenbelt" contains large areas that are of no recreational or environmental use and aren't even pretty to look at.

    (Original post by the bear)
    people are obsessed with having individual houses with individual gardens: a much more sensible model would be to have communal dwellings.
    If you try that, the exact same thing will happen as happened with the high rise blocks in our cities built in the 1960s: they will become slums, they will not be maintained and they will be demolished within a generation at considerable cost.

    (Original post by Jack22031994)
    We are heading that way, if not already. Unless we turn the countryside into a greenless ugly concrete jungle, which frankly I would hate to see (being from the countryside). One of the fields, I played football on as a kid, is now having 300 houses built on it - its a disgrace. That means, even less space for kids to play and at least 300+ (probably closer to 600) more cars going up and down quiet road every day. There is also another palnning application near near me, on the side of the village for another few hundred houses, which will take up more green space, plus it will basically double the villages size - that is not on.
    You do realise that you're supporting two contradictory aims here, yeah?

    You talk about parks and built on areas becoming "concrete jungles". The reason that happens is because we refuse to build on undeveloped greenbelt and formerly intensively farmed land. The more you allow urban areas to expand into the countryside, the less inclination there is to build on parks, woodland and spaces that would otherwise be seen as prime development opportunities.

    You cannot protect the "countryside" (a lot of which isn't particularly nice or useful) and protect these amenities at the same time. So what to come down on? Well, I come down on the sides of parks, well-used spaces, village greens and local woodlands: spaces that people actually use and that have a far higher value to society than some old farm or bit of wasteland by an A-road that is mysteriously protected.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I know, that's why I chose it. We're talking about urban expansion, and those green spaces within an urban area are still part of an urban area rather than countryside.

    There's a statistic that excludes all those urban green spaces and comes up with a figure of 2%, which is highly misleading. I've seen it cited on this forum a few times in the past.
    It's not "misleading", it's based on what is built on - a perfectly credible point to consider.

    For some reason, you seem to think urban green space is less valuable than rural green space. I think it's fairly obvious that the balance is entirely opposite. Urban green space has a much higher impact on quality of life: it is where children play, where people walk their dogs, where exercise is done. In short, it is what people overwhelmingly use and value.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It's not "misleading", it's based on what is built on. For some reason, you seem to think urban green space is less valuable than rural green space. I think it's fairly obvious that the balance is in the complete opposite direction: urban green space has a much higher impact on quality of life: it is where children play, where people walk their dogs, where exercise is done. In short, it is what people overwhelmingly use, and its uses are overwhelmingly positive.
    It is misleading when we're talking about the area of Britain covered in urban areas, and encroachment onto the countryside, which is what people tend to think of when they say "urbanisation". And the figure often comes up when talking about the area of land supposedly "available" for building - do we want to be building on urban green space?

    As for the second sentence onwards, I merely said that the 2% figure is misleading because it misses out a lot of things which are part of an urban area, giving the impression that urban areas cover less of Britain than they actually do. Urban green spaces are valuable, but they're certainly not part of open countryside, because they are part of a town or city. The figure for land area used up by urban areas is around 7% national average, around 10% in England and lower in Scotland and Wales.

    For conservation and wildlife purposes, rural areas often are more valuable than urban green space. Lots of species of wildlife won't live in towns.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    It is misleading when we're talking about the area of Britain covered in urban areas, and encroachment onto the countryside, which is what people tend to think of when they say "urbanisation".
    When people think of "urbanisation" they think of big cities, gridlocked traffic, bright lights and busy pavements. They do not think of village schools, lawn tennis and sipping Pimm's in 2,000 acres of parkland.

    And the figure often comes up when talking about the area of land supposedly "available" for building - do we want to be building on urban green space?
    Nope, nor do we want to build on all rural greenspace either. No figures can possibly sum up what we do want to build on and what we don't - we have to go beyond the qualitative for that.

    For conservation and wildlife purposes, rural areas often are more valuable than urban green space. Lots of species of wildlife won't live in towns.
    Indeed, and in all fairness I'm not all that bothered about some reduction in the habitat for wildlife when the trade-off is a better habitat for the human beings that live in this country.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by L i b)


    You do realise that you're supporting two contradictory aims here, yeah?

    You talk about parks and built on areas becoming "concrete jungles". The reason that happens is because we refuse to build on undeveloped greenbelt and formerly intensively farmed land. The more you allow urban areas to expand into the countryside, the less inclination there is to build on parks, woodland and spaces that would otherwise be seen as prime development opportunities.

    You cannot protect the "countryside" (a lot of which isn't particularly nice or useful) and protect these amenities at the same time. So what to come down on? Well, I come down on the sides of parks, well-used spaces, village greens and local woodlands: spaces that people actually use and that have a far higher value to society than some old farm or bit of wasteland by an A-road that is mysteriously protected.
    I agree that we should be able to build on wasteland near a Roads.

    Protecting the countryside is nice - why wouldnt it be? (unless youre from a city and have no knowledge of the countryside as it is completely different - I have lived in both).

    Luckily most of the open space near meis either AONB (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) or flood plains and why on Earth would you build on a flood plain?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    God now. If you want to see full, take a tour around the Pearl River Delta or Northern India or Bangladesh.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smashby25)
    Okay, so where will these houses be built? On top of other houses? I think not. The only way to accommodate for the rapidly increasing population is to build on natural green space, reducing the amount of agricultural land available, destroying wildlife habitats and increasing global warming. Limiting immigration would be a good start to ensure further generations have a sustainable future.
    Is it? What about brownfield sites?

    http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/...rownfield-land
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Let's face it. It is. For such a small country the UK has one of the largest populations in Europe. There is already housing shortages, pressures on education and the NHS as well as a large number of unemployed and much of this is due to the amount of people. There simply isn't enough services to cope. Yet people still think we should take in more people, for example refugees but that's another story. At the end of the day, if this country wants enough housing, jobs and better health care then this rapid population increase needs to stop. So yes, the UK is full.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.