An Overcrowded Island? - The Great Myth of Urban Britain

[Flosshilde]

Are the parts of Britain that might be equivelant to the Charente any more ethnically diverse? (I'm not sure what those areas might be - you would have a better idea). My parents' village is about 30 miles south of Oxford, & as far as I've seen there is only one non-white family. Even their nearest town, Didcot, seems pretty mono-ethnic.

[ahinton]

Are the parts of Britain that might be equivelant to the Charente any more ethnically diverse? (I'm not sure what those areas might be - you would have a better idea). My parents' village is about 30 miles south of Oxford, & as far as I've seen there is only one non-white family. Even their nearest town, Didcot, seems pretty mono-ethnic.

I would say so, yes, although obviously the difference in diversity levels is greater in the towns (as indeed is also the case here in UK); as I mentioned, what also strikes me in particular is the small number of places outside France from which the "non-French" population have come, compared, for example, to rural and semi-rural Herefordshire where you will quite frequently hear Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Ukrainian voices as well as those from Asian (and to a lesser extent) Africa countries - and evcen the occasional Welsh accent too (given the close proximity to Wales), whereas almost all you'll ever hear in the Charente apart from French is English and occasionally Dutch. I'm not therefore referring only of the "non-white" sector of the respective populations but to people from other parts of Europe. Again, for the sake of clarity, I am not making an judgement or expressing any opinion about any of this - merely noting it.

[Flosshilde]

Was France a bit stricter about citizens of their empire actually living in France (although as they were classed as citizens of France I'm not sure that's true, & members British empire had a fair bit of difficulty in settling in Britain, even when they had UK passports).
As for Eastern Europeans, perhaps they learn English rather than French & therefore are more likely to move to the UK? I don't know though, & these are really just vague thoughts.



(I didn't think you were making a value judgement in your original comment, any more than I was, about you, in my response. It was more a comment on the type of 'Brit' who moves to Europe but still lives as if they were in Britain, & regards the locals as 'foreigners')

[ahinton]

Was France a bit stricter about citizens of their empire actually living in France (although as they were classed as citizens of France I'm not sure that's true, & members British empire had a fair bit of difficulty in settling in Britain, even when they had UK passports).

I honestly do not know for certain.

As for Eastern Europeans, perhaps they learn English rather than French & therefore are more likely to move to the UK? I don't know though, & these are really just vague thoughts.

You could be right about that, yet there are far more non-Spanish people in some parts of Spain than there are non-French in some parts of France...

(I didn't think you were making a value judgement in your original comment, any more than I was, about you, in my response. It was more a comment on the type of 'Brit' who moves to Europe but still lives as if they were in Britain, & regards the locals as 'foreigners')

That's just the kind of Brit I like to avoid and, fortunately, I've encountered only a very few such in the Charente.

[Mindwizard]

I agree completely with Teamsaint's point. Living as I do in East Sussex, we now have the imposition of 'National Park' status to further pickle existing towns into almost immoveable boundaries and the licence to disallow practically every proposed development on the grounds that it (almost by definition) is in an area of 'outstanding natural beauty'. The result? Town like my own - Lewes - having its twittens and gardens filled in with new developments while perfectly useable non-agricultural plots on the outskirts have absolutely zero chance of getting planning permission for residential use. Yes, my own house has risen hugely in value because of this artificial shortage of land this policy has created. But that is at the expense of my own children, who can not and probably never will be able to afford property in the town of their birth. Worse, the policy has created a very vocal and unashamed community of nimbies - many of whom would not have their own properties had the same rigid anti-housing policies been in place as little as ten or fifteen years ago. We have Mark Easton to thank for at least bringing this scandalous situation to light. That will, as you say, be accompanied by some rather hysterical flak from people who simply will not accept the statistical facts.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree completely with Teamsaint's point. Living as I do in East Sussex, we now have the imposition of 'National Park' status to further pickle existing towns into almost immoveable boundaries and the licence to disallow practically every proposed development on the grounds that it (almost by definition) is in an area of 'outstanding natural beauty'. The result? Town like my own - Lewes - having its twittens and gardens filled in with new developments while perfectly useable non-agricultural plots on the outskirts have absolutely zero chance of getting planning permission for residential use. Yes, my own house has risen hugely in value because of this artificial shortage of land this policy has created. But that is at the expense of my own children, who can not and probably never will be able to afford property in the town of their birth. Worse, the policy has created a very vocal and unashamed community of nimbies - many of whom would not have their own properties had the same rigid anti-housing policies been in place as little as ten or fifteen years ago. We have Mark Easton to thank for at least bringing this scandalous situation to light. That will, as you say, be accompanied by some rather hysterical flak from people who simply will not accept the statistical facts.

Welcome to the Forum, Mindwizard. Surely this all comes back to the overpopulation problem. We all would like to live in a beautiful part of the country. But in order for such a place to exist, there needs to be open space, which National Parks are designed to protect. We also need agricultural land to go some way towards feeding our huge population. Most people who live in beautiful places also want cars (and the posers want 4x4s, which they rarely need) all adding to the space requirements and creating strain on the environment. It was once said that China could support 1 billion poor people, but could never support 1 billion rich people. It may be the same here.

[ahinton]

I agree completely with Teamsaint's point. Living as I do in East Sussex, we now have the imposition of 'National Park' status to further pickle existing towns into almost immoveable boundaries and the licence to disallow practically every proposed development on the grounds that it (almost by definition) is in an area of 'outstanding natural beauty'. The result? Town like my own - Lewes - having its twittens and gardens filled in with new developments while perfectly useable non-agricultural plots on the outskirts have absolutely zero chance of getting planning permission for residential use. Yes, my own house has risen hugely in value because of this artificial shortage of land this policy has created. But that is at the expense of my own children, who can not and probably never will be able to afford property in the town of their birth. Worse, the policy has created a very vocal and unashamed community of nimbies - many of whom would not have their own properties had the same rigid anti-housing policies been in place as little as ten or fifteen years ago. We have Mark Easton to thank for at least bringing this scandalous situation to light. That will, as you say, be accompanied by some rather hysterical flak from people who simply will not accept the statistical facts.

I think that you make very valid points here, with the obviously unwelcome outcomes of which I can only sympathise.

[Mindwizard]

Welcome to the Forum, Mindwizard. Surely this all comes back to the overpopulation problem. We all would like to live in a beautiful part of the country. But in order for such a place to exist, there needs to be open space, which National Parks are designed to protect. We also need agricultural land to go some way towards feeding our huge population. Most people who live in beautiful places also want cars (and the posers want 4x4s, which they rarely need) all adding to the space requirements and creating strain on the environment. It was once said that China could support 1 billion poor people, but could never support 1 billion rich people. It may be the same here.

There are, of course, always legitimate questions to be asked about population density and available resources. In terms of the 'need for open space' argument, I would point to the beautiful and very open island of Jersey. Their population density is approximately double that of England - with a quality of infrastructure, housing and quality of life that puts most of England to shame. So there is no automatic reduction in either beauty, sustainability or access to open countryside because of a greater density of population.

I am extremely open to the arguments for the need to maintain productive agricultural land - that would at least allow for a sensible and hopefully evidence-based debate on how land use might be distributed for the common good. But let's be honest, that is rarely the reason given for restricting development in the UK. The general objection rests on the erroneous assertion that the countryside is on the verge of disappearance. Implicit within that assertion is that the UK is currently over-developed. In my opinion (and that of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment), neither of these arguments is borne out by the facts.

As to whether we are an overpopulated island - the Jersey example aside - the UK is not substantially different in population density than say, Belgium or Germany - yet neither of those countries suffers from the same constipated planning restrictions (and resulting housing shortage) faced in this country.

I would, however, accept that we are an over-crowded island, if only in a very qualified sense. If you pack 56 million or so people into less than 3% of the landscape, the sense of overcrowding is a very visible and palpable one. The fact that anti-development apologists then proceed to divide the total UK land area by 56 million to arrive at a 'people per square kilometre' ratio completely distorts the reality (as Mark Easton's article made clear) that some 98% of the UK landscape is effectively rural and that there is now more woodland in this country than in 1924.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There are, of course, always legitimate questions to be asked about population density and available resources. In terms of the 'need for open space' argument, I would point to the beautiful and very open island of Jersey. Their population density is approximately double that of England - with a quality of infrastructure, housing and quality of life that puts most of England to shame. So there is no automatic reduction in either beauty, sustainability or access to open countryside because of a greater density of population.

Jersey does rely heavy upon food imports (though of course it does export some food too. Overall sustainability has to take this into account. But the general direction of your argument dies make sense. Some parts of West and South Yorkshire have suffered from such poor planning since the Industrial Revolution, that the shabbiness has become ingrained, despite efforts by some to regenerate certain areas. There are some MPs of the Right who think towns like Liverpool and Hull should simply be abandoned. This does not surprise me, as those that suggest such measures come up up with all sorts of stupid suggestions.
It just takes more effort.

[MrGongGong]

Being self sufficient in food is not a good measure of a post industrial society being "overcrowded" imv
our wealth means that we choose to eat asparagus in October
and import many foods that we could easily grow albeit more expensively

it could be argued (and i'm no geographer) that NOT being self sufficient in food production is in some cases a measure of "development"
more people "choosing" to work in towns and cities rather than in agriculture etc
but obviously NOT true everywhere