An Overcrowded Island? - The Great Myth of Urban Britain

[amateur51]

As in "Dordogne twinned with Borsetshire"

[Panjandrum]

I also remembered going to Ravenscar in North Yorkshire , which now is a beautiful "unspoiled" rural environment yet from from 1640 to 1862 had a huge industrial Alum works on the site a until a chemical process was discovered of making Alum synthetically ...............

Of course, the population of Great Britain was between 5 and 20 million at this point of time. Read Conan Doyle or Collins and you will note that Hampstead, Beckenham and Norwood were considered rural villages.

[Quarky]

"I think it's important to remember that the "countryside" is as much a constructed landscape as the towns and cities........ there is a kind of nostalgia for a fictitious rural idyll "

Mr GongGong -I have a healthy respect for your musical views, but this is absolute nonsense.

Suggest a leisurely drive around Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire or Buckinghamshire. You will see at this time of year English countryside at its best. It's mother nature - worth any amount of symphonies, sonatas and works or art.

Then contrast that with gross developments in built up areas near Motorways in the same counties, and that is the source of the complaint about desecration ofthe English countryside.

People need homes? Tower blocks? Fox holes on Salisbury Plain?

[MrGongGong]

Suggest a leisurely drive around Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire or Buckinghamshire. You will see at this time of year English countryside at its best. It's mother nature - worth any amount of symphonies, sonatas and works or art.
?

indeed
BUT it was made like that by people
it used to be a forest
we cut it down and made charcoal then iron then steam trains
and boats so we could sail round the world and get more stuff

Why do people think that in saying this (which is simple history) that one is advocating badly built and poorly designed housing ?

[french frank]

Great stuff, MrGG!

I have the opposite experience.

I was brought up in a rural area on the edge of a straggly village and surrounded by woodland and agricultural land. Our house stood in about 7 acres of garden, orchard and woodland. My grandfather (three generation family) grew most of our vegetables, we had hens for eggs and eating, and pigs. When our circs changed and we had to move, my father kept a small field, hoping one day to build a house on it. Meanwhile the neighbouring small town grew and grew, sprawled over the fields that our house had overlooked, hundreds of houses built, it gained a comprehensive school and became a dormitory town for Bristol. No green belt there, apparently, though my father had been refused planning permission at the time for one house on his piece of land on the hillside opposite.

That bit of land stayed in the family for 30 years until it reverted to 'ancient' woodland. If a house had been built on it, I would never have wanted to live there anyway with the countrysiide between us and the town reduced a thin strip of green. We gave it to the town council for use as an amenity for all the new town dwellers as it was just a short walk away from them.

[Lateralthinking1]

I have the opposite experience.

I was brought up in a rural area on the edge of a straggly village and surrounded by woodland and agricultural land. Our house stood in about 7 acres of garden, orchard and woodland. My grandfather (three generation family) grew most of our vegetables, we had hens for eggs and eating, and pigs. When our circs changed and we had to move, my father kept a small field, hoping one day to build a house on it. Meanwhile the neighbouring small town grew and grew, sprawled over the fields that our house had overlooked, hundreds of houses built, it gained a comprehensive school and became a dormitory town for Bristol. No green belt there, apparently, though my father had been refused planning permission at the time for one house on his piece of land on the hillside opposite.

That bit of land stayed in the family for 30 years until it reverted to 'ancient' woodland. If a house had been built on it, I would never have wanted to live there anyway with the countrysiide between us and the town reduced a thin strip of green. We gave it to the town council for use as an amenity for all the new town dwellers as it was just a short walk away from them.

I am very sorry indeed to hear about that experience frenchfrank and am not surprised that your family gave the land to the community as a gift. I think that there is a big area between 'the countryside isn't natural' and 'those who enjoy it have a Poundbury style romance'. Your story reminds me of a visit to Pembrokeshire in the 1970s when I stayed at a small bed and breakfast place run by a Mrs Wootton-Woolley. Her family had given Solva, which they owned, to the National Trust. That action, I guess, could be called an act of construction. I just remember feeling immense gratitude at the time and rather awestruck by the enlightenment. In 2012, that is certainly not diminished. In fact, modern context simply adds to the magnificence of what they did.

[Bryn]

"I think it's important to remember that the "countryside" is as much a constructed landscape as the towns and cities........ there is a kind of nostalgia for a fictitious rural idyll "

Mr GongGong -I have a healthy respect for your musical views, but this is absolute nonsense.

Suggest a leisurely drive around Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire or Buckinghamshire. You will see at this time of year English countryside at its best. It's mother nature - worth any amount of symphonies, sonatas and works or art.

Then contrast that with gross developments in built up areas near Motorways in the same counties, and that is the source of the complaint about desecration ofthe English countryside.

People need homes? Tower blocks? Fox holes on Salisbury Plain?

Now that really is nonsense. There is no part of Britain, or in deed Great Britain, that has not at some point in history been 'put to the plough' or otherwise remodelled by human hand. Even the 'wildest' parts of Exmoor were at one time heavily cultivated, as is clearly revealed by aerial photography. Agriculture is not "mother nature" at work, it is mother nature under the whip hand of Homo sapiens.

[Flosshilde]

I am very sorry indeed to hear about that experience frenchfrank and am not surprised that your family gave the land to the community as a gift. I think that there is a big area between 'the countryside isn't natural' and 'those who enjoy it have a Poundbury style romance'.

I'm not sure what this means? It's perfectly possible to enjoy the countryside & be realistic about what or who made it. There is hardly an area of Britain that hasn't seem the influence of humans - possibly the Cairngorms but most Scottish hills are affected by sheep, deer & grouse managed to provide economic benefit for their owners. Without their grazing or the heather burning there would be extensive woodlands.

a small bed and breakfast place run by a Mrs Wootton-Woolley. Her family had given Solva, which they owned, to the National Trust. That action, I guess, could be called an act of construction. I just remember feeling immense gratitude at the time and rather awestruck by the enlightenment. In 2012, that is certainly not diminished. In fact, modern context simply adds to the magnificence of what they did.

I'm a bit suspicious about people who give their houses to the National Trust - it's usually because they can't afford the upkeep themselves, & they usually get to carry on living on the property. Nigel Nicholson's book on Sissinghurst & the gift of it to the NT is interesting - clearly describing the emotional difficulty of handing over the control of your family home to another organisatio but it also suggests the he wanted to have his cake & eat it.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not sure what this means? It's perfectly possible to enjoy the countryside & be realistic about what or who made it. There is hardly an area of Britain that hasn't seem the influence of humans - possibly the Cairngorms but most Scottish hills are affected by sheep, deer & grouse managed to provide economic benefit for their owners. Without their grazing or the heather burning there would be extensive woodlands.

I'm a bit suspicious about people who give their houses to the National Trust - it's usually because they can't afford the upkeep themselves, & they usually get to carry on living on the property. Nigel Nicholson's book on Sissinghurst & the gift of it to the NT is interesting - clearly describing the emotional difficulty of handing over the control of your family home to another organisatio but it also suggests the he wanted to have his cake & eat it.

I completely agree on the first point Flosshilde.

I didn't explain myself very well. What I was trying to convey is that those of us who believe in the conservation of attractive areas are not all of the view that there is a natural unspoilt wildness or trying to recreate some sort of chocolate box myth.

I happen to know Ravenscar and I would say that the area has been managed well. The remains of the industry there add to its ambience. Ditto the remains of the tin mines in Cornwall. In other words, in many such areas, I like where we are now.

On the second, Solva isn't a house - big historical buildings matter to me less although there are many which have an interesting history, eg Chartwell - but rather a coastal/river inlet spot with surrounding land which itself once had a woollen mill.

[MrGongGong]

I have the opposite experience.

So the industrial revolution didn't happen where you live then ?

[Stephen Smith]

I've visited this thread again. Interestting to see where the discussion has gone, between whom, to what effect. Perhaps we need to differentiate - we want wilderness (ok National parks - Scottish Highlands,Islands etc Snowdonia, Large tracts of Wales, Exmoor/Dartmoor, admitting some don't regard all of these as wilderness enough), we want areas of beauty and severely regulated development - Lake District, Peak District etc. And we need agricultural land as well, agreed. We also need to manage population growth and size, so far as possiblle.
To re-iterate, my point was that we need to house our people in decent sized dwellings, and without inflated scarcity value, so that our children can afford to live. But we also need, as part of that, access to gardens, park and amenity land, open spaces - there is enough research to show its importance to the mental well-being of most of us (although acountants would struggle to factor in the value).

I'm sure there are many difficulties in this for planners, politicians government, developers generally, but I am amazed there has been little expression of what is so bady needed. Imposition of house building targets on home counties (I live in S West Herts) highly populated areas under the Labour Govt regional set up was anti-democratic with no care for the overloading of infrastructure it proposed. I'm no expert on Milton Keynes but I had cause to go there often and it seemed sensitive to existing villages and is a green and viable city now. Similar development must be worth consideration as one part of the way forward.

Recession aside, I understand youth & other unemployment in France is high - with stifling regulation & taxation of small (any) business. Yes, its big and a lot of it empty country - but the views expressed here relate to an expatriate - drawing income frome retirement or income generated outside France. I am interested in a decent way forward for England (and hope the Scottish and Welsh & their governments would be similarly enlightened)

Stephen

[Bryn]

Even Wilderness is the product of human intervention:

[Flosshilde]

To re-iterate, my point was that we need to house our people in decent sized dwellings, and without inflated scarcity value, so that our children can afford to live. But we also need, as part of that, access to gardens, park and amenity land, open spaces - Stephen

I think this is one of the key questions - what sort of housing should be built? A huge amount of the housing being built at the moment is land-greedy - detached or semi-detached two storey houses surrounded with a tiny garden (because, although people say they want a garden they don't actually want to do any gardening) on green-field sites, consuming what in many cases is prime agricultural land. Instead it would be useful to look at what was the standard housing type in the bigger Scottish cities until the 20th century - the tenement. In Glasgow that typically gave a group of 8 flats (two to a floor) around a comunal stair, with a communal back green. This gave a high density of population, and coupled with a large number of public parks, safe places for children to play and ample opportunity for people to enjoy the open air & green spaces. The density of the city meant that people were (& still are) in easy reach of shops, schools, & work, unlike the new developments that are dependent on car ownership.

[Lateralthinking1]

I've visited this thread again. Interestting to see where the discussion has gone, between whom, to what effect. Perhaps we need to differentiate - we want wilderness (ok National parks - Scottish Highlands,Islands etc Snowdonia, Large tracts of Wales, Exmoor/Dartmoor, admitting some don't regard all of these as wilderness enough), we want areas of beauty and severely regulated development - Lake District, Peak District etc. And we need agricultural land as well, agreed. We also need to manage population growth and size, so far as possiblle.
To re-iterate, my point was that we need to house our people in decent sized dwellings, and without inflated scarcity value, so that our children can afford to live. But we also need, as part of that, access to gardens, park and amenity land, open spaces - there is enough research to show its importance to the mental well-being of most of us (although acountants would struggle to factor in the value).

I'm sure there are many difficulties in this for planners, politicians government, developers generally, but I am amazed there has been little expression of what is so bady needed. Imposition of house building targets on home counties (I live in S West Herts) highly populated areas under the Labour Govt regional set up was anti-democratic with no care for the overloading of infrastructure it proposed. I'm no expert on Milton Keynes but I had cause to go there often and it seemed sensitive to existing villages and is a green and viable city now. Similar development must be worth consideration as one part of the way forward.

Recession aside, I understand youth & other unemployment in France is high - with stifling regulation & taxation of small (any) business. Yes, its big and a lot of it empty country - but the views expressed here relate to an expatriate - drawing income frome retirement or income generated outside France. I am interested in a decent way forward for England (and hope the Scottish and Welsh & their governments would be similarly enlightened)

Stephen

Stephen - I am very content with the big picture as it is now on the conservation of large areas. Post Octavia Hill, one of the true greats in British history, the early days of the National Trust, the mass trespass at Kinder Scout and the establishment by Wainwright and others of walking routes....well, the creation of National Parks, AONBs and SSSIs are among the best things introduced and maintained by post war Governments. New Labour did nothing better than to add to the number of National Parks, improve rights of way on footpaths, and produce countryside maps. I would ideally like to see more AONBs given National Park status and greater numbers of each but my main concern is not to chuck away what we have.

From a local perspective, I am very strongly for the green belt and oppose unnecessary building on green sites. An amount of local woodland is protected but some of the most precious to me is viewed by ecologists as unremarkable. We are under constant threat from garden grabbers which again is a problem. We should promote the idea that areas are not just for locals. Nimbyism isn't good. Where there are spaces, urban people should be encouraged more to enjoy them too. I have less of a feel for the situation regarding villages further out but whether it is a Bletchingley not so far from here or, say, a Cottered to the north of London, I wouldn't like to see them spoilt. It isn't just about development. There is also the need to minimise noise and light pollution. New Labour did some very good work there, some of it in line with international requirements. OK I admit it. I was directly involved.

I am not convinced that vast swathes of house building is the magic bullet answer for the young. Initiatives are required in all policy areas. Developers much prefer to create roads with four and five bedroom houses. Even Prescott's £60,000 houses sold at well over £200,000. New eco-towns towns were tried by the last Government, eg at Forde, West Sussex, where nothing much seems to be happening. However, I would support the habitation of empty property, development on the many areas of urban wasteland and new towns close to the main north to south road corridors where land is frequently bland. I don't subscribe to some of the new ethics - manufacturing communities through greater density housing and the ending of cul-de-sacs - but what we do need is far more focus on smaller housing units and preferably ones that are built to last for a hundred years.

There appears to have been a lot of natural recent development around the Somerset and Wiltshire towns although I don't wholly see the reason for it, particularly where the railway was lost to Beeching. Presumably it partially eases the pressure on the South East. But regional development across this country is very badly needed. It emerged this year that Geoffrey Howe had told Margaret Thatcher he felt Merseyside was a lost cause. Successive Governments though have sent out mixed messages on the regions, abandoned them or worked against them. I don't understand it and was astonished when that was the case under Blair. Currently we have a Chancellor who is issuing statements about lowering pay and benefits in the regions. HS2 is being embarked on with a view to taking it only to Birmingham. The BBC goes to Salford but nothing else does. None of it makes sense.

Governments need to get to grips with changes in agriculture. The food issue has been mentioned but there is also a jobs issue. Many young people are returning to the land of their grandparents and, unlike their parents, choosing to turn it back into working farms. They need support. We need to continue with the mature debate about population numbers, looking at the resources first and who can be accommodated second. There are very considerable complexities around water, energy and transport that will be a devil to sort out, while acting decently and honouring our obligations. Miliband is to be applauded for changing the mood music but now needs to think about the detail. The positive sign is that all thinking is now more nuanced. - Lat.

[french frank]

I have the opposite experience.

So the industrial revolution didn't happen where you live then ?

I was talking about my personal experience and the Industrial Revolution occurred before we moved there . Yes, the natural ancient woodland which had once covered the whole area was cleared over the centuries (not I think anything to do with the Industrial Revolution, though) but no one is claiming that the existing rural landscape is primordial. The fact that it has changed since the year dot, and by the hand of man, isn't a reason to devalue it as it is, or think it doesn't matter if it's destroyed.