Housing market is realy bucking up!

[Doctor Drivel]

And that it is, and reinforced by your darkling Maggie.

You are a madman Matt.

[Andy Hall]

Who's Maxie Matt? Another of your fairy-tale characters?

Leith Hill is 294m high. With the tower of 19.5m, built in 1765, it exceeds the required height of 300m for a mountain.

So up yer nose.

[Andy Hall]

Since when have you been in favour of market forces?

At least be consistent....

[Matt]

So does that mean the Emley Moor tower is a mountain then? (330m high structure sat on a 270m high hill)

[Andy Hall]

Of course. Until it falls down.....

[Tim Lamb]

In message , Doctor Drivel writes

No it wasn't. I asked specifically if you considered Hertfordshire to be underpopulated based on your earlier statements.

OK. So is your market force going to provide the necessary infrastructure or do you expect transport, power, water, leisure, employment to be supplied centrally at no cost?

regards

>

[Roger]

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

I don't know where you got that definition of a mountain Andy but it isn't a generally accepted one (and artificial structures don't count anyway). Nor for that matter is the 1000 foot one on which it is presumably based.

Those people who care about such things can while way hours arguing about what is or is not a mountain. When you start from a dictionary definition as imprecise as "a natural upward projection of the earth's surface, higher and steeper than a hill and often having a rocky summit" mountain can be attached to some unlikely hillocks by judicious selection of the comparative hill but even seen in the best possible light a 968 foot high mound is an unlikely candidate for being a mountain.

Leith Hill is however a Marilyn. :-)

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, as I said, England Wales doesn't have mountains.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, always. It is you that favours a Stalinist system not me.

[John Cartmell]

is that North Holland or South Holland?

Usually described here as The Netherlands.

[Doctor Drivel]

It was answered below. Read.

Whether infrastructure is supplied locally or centrally doesn't matter, market forces dictate the population. That is how it happens elsewhere with not too much of a problem at all. Also with microCHP infrastructure, in energy, is reduced. What you want is a centralise quota for populations and house supply. We have tried that since 1947 and it has failed miserably. We ended up with the oldest, pokiest, least energy efficient and expensive homes in the developed world. Not also that home that people don't want but buy because they have Hobson's choice. Millions have emigrated from the UK since 1945 and the prime reason was that they could have a nice big house which was virtually out of their reach in the UK. The fill the gap of the millions leaving government brought in people of different cultures and religions, which is now starting to cause major social problems. All because of planning. Read the Unaffordable Homes document. That will put you right.

[Roger]

The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

OK Dribble. What is your definition of a mountain? You do after all need to know what a mountain is in order to justify your claim.

[Andy Hall]

I understood it to be the Ordnance Survey definition. There are a whole bunch of regionally used names for mountains of different heights on their web site.

Ah well....

[David]

In article , Doctor Drivel writes

Now Mr Prescott has increased building density to 14 houses per acre we are seeing much higher densities, the government ought to revoke that and insist that only 15% of any land is used for the actual building. This government is doing a crap job with regards to planning.

[David]

In article , Doctor Drivel writes

Only because people want to John, I speak to some city dwellers when I go into to get provisions most cannot comprehend living in the country, they actually enjoy having neighbours all around them, it makes them feel safe. We just had some city folk move in near to us, they are frightened to death and have just installed a burglar alarm even though there hasn't been a crime here in centuries, I can't see them staying long, they don't like the sheep baaing and the cockerels crowing. Most city folk just want a weekend cottage out of town.

[Roger]

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

I had a quick look and found a few definitions Munros, Corbetts, Donalds, Grahams and Hewit but not for mountain which figured in each definition. The definitions are all vague and the Hewitt one misleading. They have "A Hewitt is a welsh mountain over 2000 feet in height" which is true as far as it goes but Hewitt is an acronym Hills/England/Wales/Ireland/Two/Thousand.

Marilyns have been around longer than Hewitts which until recently excluded Ireland and went by the name of Sweats but the OS don't appear to have heard of either.

[Roger]

The message from Roger contains these words:

I don't usually follow up my own posts but Dribble lost for words?

[<me9]

I've never seen any disadvantage in strip development along roads, as long as it isn't too dense, and regard for safety in accessing the road is taken into account. Having seen it elsewhere I quite like it, It's much better than cramming lots of little boxes next to each other in tiny plots in existing built up areas.

[Derek ^]

You seem to be talking about a different issue to David. -No?

14 Houses per acre *is* too dense.

DG

[David]

In article , [e-mail] writes

work out the dimensions for 14 house per acre on a strip development though, that's not what developers would build and not how the land would be released