Overcrowding or overreacting...

I will not cease from mental fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green and pleasant land.

Of course that wasn't meant to be taken literally but the UK government seem intent on building several Jerusalems in their haste to "Concrete over England 'The Government's plan to bribe councils into concreting over what remains of the prettier parts of England is of a piece with its partisan rule since 1997." So says the DT editorial for today's news.

No environmental conditions are placed on the scheme, which the Campaign to Protect Rural England described as "a bribe". It feared that it could introduce "a scary new temptation to corruption in local government and planning".

Henry Oliver of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said: "This idea seems to be a return to 'predict and provide', with a bribe attached - in the linked article with reference to Shrewsbury and the West Midlands - it's not just a problem for the South east of England.
More worryingly the article goes on to say "Government figures show that five million new homes are needed in England over 20 years, 1.5 million of them because of record levels of immigration."...record levels of immigration....more on that later.

All this is nothing new, for years the press have reported variations on the theme, this is just one example from the Guardian and there are small victories that give some communities hope:

"Councils are supposed to be the guardians of the countryside but I suspect what has happened in Dolton is a microcosm of what is happening elsewhere in rural communities,"..."If councils fail to follow their policies and procedures properly, they not only spoil our precious countryside but, in this case, they would also not have achieved affordable housing for local people."

...and I guess it's no surprise that Porker Prescott has been wasting more money "And the scandal has provoked Conservatives to demand that ministers should now also call a halt to Mr Prescott's environmentally unsustainable plans to build thousands of new homes in the crowded south-east of England, and demolish Victorian terraces in the north."
All political parties talk a good game but never deliver, I find myself agreeing with the Lib Dem's (shock-horror!) outline from their last manifesto:

"Liberal Democrats believe decent housing should be a right. We want to meet people’s aspirations to own their home whilst providing more affordable and social homes to rent. In our towns and cities, we aim to increase the number of affordable homes, cut the damage to the environment by energy inefficient homes and push down power over community issues to local residents. People also want more than bricks and mortar from their home. They want to live in safe, clean and friendly communities. So Liberal Democrats will give local people more say in running their neighbourhoods and put the environment at the heart of housing policy. "

Back now to the immigration side of things: Government figures show that five million new homes are needed in England over 20 years, 1.5 million of them because of record levels of immigration....I believe two things: 5 million is too many and more than 1.5 million will be due to immigration - Gov statistics show us that the UK has a growing population. It grew by 280,600 people in the year to mid-2004, and the average growth per year has been 0.4 per cent since mid-2001....amusingly the graph is a Janus, two-faced! Also, this from the UK Government Actuary department:

In the principal projection, the population of the UK is projected to grow by 7.2 million between 2004 and 2031. Some 4.1 million of this increase is directly due to the assumed number of net migrants. Natural change accounts for a further 3.1 million (the difference between 19.2 million births and 16.1 million deaths). Some 1.2 million of this natural increase would occur in the absence of migration. The remaining 1.9 million is the net effect of the assumed annual level of net migration on natural change (almost entirely the effect on births, slightly offset by a small increase in deaths).

Or in the words of Migration Watch. "The UK’s population is projected to rise by 7.2 million from 2004 to 2031 – 6.0 million (83%) of this rise is due to immigration" and "Net inward foreign migration has more than tripled since 1997 to 340,000 in 2004. Significant components - work-related migration and family settlement - are likely to continue at present levels or increase. Indeed, under present policies, they will continue at high levels indefinitely. Illegal immigration is additional."...so, 83% of the population growth will be as net immigration and the subsequent organic growth in immigrant populations...NOW, that to me suggests that nearly all of the proposed building, be it in the south-east or elsewhere, is to cater for the new (and set to continue) record-shattering immigration.
It's not this bad yet, I think the CPRE report -"Your Countryside, Your Choice" - that began with a their portrait of what could be England in 2035, "when the countryside has all but disappeared"...not yet, the photo above is one of several thousand beautiful views across England (this one isn't far from where my family live); when I fly home be it to Heathrow, Bristol or Bournemouth airports you can see the countryside as it really is - but how long will it last, how long will England be a green and pleasant land?
S.O.