Your survey is crap. Your population figures are way out. With some cities you've included the population of neighbouring boroughs. Liverpool where I live has a population just shy of 500k, not 900k. With Leeds you showed a photo of Bradford and Knaresborough! Manchester 10th place? You've only included the city council boundaries and not the urban areas, whereas Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham and Bristol you haven't. Put short, your survey is plainly inaccurate and inconsistent.
Some of the results given are the urban populations which include surrounding areas. And some are just metropolitan boroughs population. The inconstancies are embarrassing.
I've worked what he's based this on. Liverpool: He's included the boroughs of Knowsley, Sefton and Wirral. Parts of Knowsley and Sefton are arguably suburbs of Liverpool, but Southport and Formby (both in Sefton) definitely aren't, nor is any of the Wirral. Manchester: The City of Manchester only. Birmingham: The whole of the West Midlands county, including Coventry, a city he also used separately. Nottingham: The defined urban area which includes towns in Derbyshire such as Heanor, Ilkeston and Ripley. None of these should define the city population. He also thinks Sunderland has a bigger population than Newcastle and Bradford, neither of which made this laughable list. I think what he's also done is get his stats from Wikipedia, without properly looking into them. As for his photos, well in addition to the errors I've mentioned, he featured Bristol's Park Street in the photos of Sheffield, a photo of New York in London's, and an overseas campus of Nottingham University in Nottingham's. All in all a badly made, inaccurate video that maybe he'd like to comment on.
@@markcollinson5665 Spot on. Liverpool's urban sprawl stops abruptly at Thornton/Blundellsands/Aintree. You've got to cross open countryside to include any more
A bit odd that you have tallied Manchester's population as the borough and not its urban population. But you have with London, Birmingham and Liverpool.
Yes they got it confused. If they are doing the city population, Nottingham will not be in the top 10 but if they include the Urban Area then it will be in the top 10. Nottingham city boundary is smaller than Bradford, Leicester, Coventry, Bristol and Sheffield but Nottingham Urban Area is bigger than all of the cities that I have mentioned
This video is full of disinformation ... it consistently confuses the population within city boundaries with the population within the "urban area" (which would include towns, villages and settlements outside the city boundary but part of the same built-up area). For some reason it includes the entire population of the West Midlands conurbation as living in "Birmingham" but it fails to include the entire population of the Greater Manchester conurbation as being residents of "Manchester". With Leicester it seems to think that the entire population of the outer suburbs (Wigston, Oadby, Birstall etc.) live within the city boundary and it makes some inane comment about the city being very crowded, All very amateur. And that street used at 7:00 to illustrate Sheffield is actually Park Street in Bristol!!
I agree Roger. The population of Birmingham is about 1 million. The figure quoted here is the whole of the old West Midlands county. The population of Liverpool is about half a million, not 900000. The population of Nottingham is a 300 000 odd. Bristol just under half a million. The figures for London, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow, however I think are about right.
Don't be fooled by Manchester it's all hype! it's NOT the second city at all that's what they want you to believe. don't be fooled by "Greater Manchester" that's not manchester itself plus they have made the county far too big and swallowed up Bolton and Wigan ( Lancashire ) and Sale and other towns from Cheshire it's a farce even Salford isn't in manchester. Leeds, Liverpool and Glasgow are all bigger cities
@@markcollinson5665 Yeah, a shitload of the other vids are done so equally badly. I've been sardonically posting on every ill-researched video. Ironically, having worked in Bristol for 5 years, I never really bothered to go up college green. The borderline was drawn at the bear pit!
I am from Nottingham and this is incorrect. You took the Nottingham Urban Area not the city population. The city population is around 330.000 which is 14th/15th largest city but the Urban Area actually shoots it up to 7th largest
You quote London...Greater London.. but the rest are smaller local authority areas. Greater Manchester is 2.8 million in ten boroughs...A pointless exercise then.
@@shayyuss He didn't say club, he said football. As if there is an actual football that has been doing the rounds since time immemorial in the FA(what?). Such and odd way of saying that. So poorly said. Also, Sheffield FC is recognised as the oldest club in the world, still playing, by FIFA.
Complete rubbish! The population of the City of London is tiny! You have gone only for the Urban area. Why not do this for the urban areas of the other cities. If you are going for the population of London within the M25 why not include the population of Greater Manchester which would make it 2 or 3?
Glasgows population is 1.8 million if we’re counting euro populations as you have with Nottingham Liverpool Birmingham and London or 633,000 if it is the city population
Need to consider like for like not a mix of population within city boundaries and others including their urban areas. Best and most accurate measure of actual size includes the urban area.
No, it's not that 'we won't find any cities from Northern Ireland', it's that 'you' didn't find any cities from Northern Ireland in your limited research. There's well over half a million in Belfast.
WRONG City of London is one of the UK's SMALLEST Cities. City of London has a population of around 9,000. London is made up of 2 Cities and 32 Boroughs. The other City in London. Since 1539 City of Westminster has a population of around 261,000. The population quoted in the video is that of Greater London which is not a City.
@@markcollinson5665 it’s really strange this video I don’t know what it’s based on the Newcastle city council say that the population was 300,820 (2019) and on the Sunderland city council website it said they had a population of 277,962.
@@SameerKhalid. Exactly, and Sunderland's population includes outlying towns such as Washington and Houghton-le-Spring. The actual city population is near 175k.
Sunderland Borough has a bigger population than Newcastle & if you're taking the actual places Edinburgh has 1 million in its vicinity. I've worked every big city in the UK. I'm from Sunderland so I know both Newcastle & Sunderland well. I've just finished working in Edinburgh for 5 months & it's easily bigger than Newcastle & more populated. Newcastle is highly built up but only in a small area but they've got North Tyneside & Gateshead next to it so that trebles the local population. Sheffield has the largest population for a single city by the way
@@DavyRo His population quotes used urban areas when it suited. Newcastle has a population of 302k, Sunderland including Washington and Houghton, both is 278k. Birmingham has the biggest city population by a long way (outside London) although Sheffield does have a high population.
London residents per square metre, really per square metre or square kilometre? Interesting that you've put a picture of Knaresborough in the piece on Leeds. To my knowledge Knaresborough is in a completely different county to Leeds, North Yorkshire as opposed to West Yorkshire. Try check everything is correct before you put it out there.
@@steveharrison7328 well first off London at first place. City of London has a population of around 9,000. Should not be in this list. I lived in London. It's YOU that needs to do research before commenting.
This is wrong on so many levels you cant compile a list of populations of UK cities wheres some are populations within city limits and others that includes urban and metro areas and then go on to list them in order of population this is not the way to do it as you can see Nottingham is not bigger than Glasgow and there are other examples on this video
Nottingham doesn’t have a population no we’re near 700k and Liverpool isn’t that big by population Google it most of these videos are wrong the top two is right but the rest is wrong
This is wholly incorrect. If measured by urbanised landmass (as all other countries in the world do) with centres where the surrounding area is dependent on them, and stop measuring cities that are actually suburbs of other cities which is an historic anomaly, then the largest cities are as follows: 1) London: 24 million 2) Manchester metropolitan area 5.7 million 3) Birmingham metro area 4.8 million 4) Glasgow metro area 2.5 million 5) Leeds: 2.4 million 6) Liverpool: 2.2 million 7) Newcastle (which includes Sunderland economically speaking): 2 million 8) Sheffield 1.85 million
Where in the world did you get these figures, pretty sure birmingham is is like 4.2m and manchester is 3.8 m, not sure about the others but the only way manchester is 5.8 is if u included liverpool as part of the metro area otherwise i have no idea where u found 2 milllion people around manchester. And isnt 23 million like the whole of southern england?
@@Christian-uj1mq The figures are based on our property company and others' combined data that shows the commuter flows and incomes of those flows set against the contiguous suburbanised landmass. In 2020, the economic footprint whereby land is contiguously urbanised and economically dependent on its core city gives the numbers above. In fact, Birmingham is slightly larger IF Telford was connected to Birmingham's suburban area and it almost is. That would give 5 million for Birmingham. Manchester does not need to include Liverpool. Liverpool and Manchester combined would see 8 million people or so. Manchester holds most of Lancashire, Cheshire, a western portion of Derbyshire plus Greater Manchester itself etc. This alone is in excess of 5.1 million. That is before we include illegal migrants or the economically dependent (for value added, non-state jobs) of Stoke. Birmingham does not have the transport infrastructure to pose any footprint on this area, Manchester however, does. We suspect that this is to do with the rail transport being too poor via Wolverhampton but remains to be proven. We have done this journey on research trips and it is clear why no-one would do it. That said, North Stoke is more strongly attached economically and is physically connected via the Cheshire suburbs. It is however, much poorer, whilst the joint second wealthiest part of England sits right on its border with Prestbury, Wilmslow etc. The numbers you refer to are the decades outdated 'city region' numbers which for a property developer are as irrelevant as a water bucket and well when you have tap water. We have to commission and do our own research as the powers that be in the UK refuse to measure cities by their urban area and economic footprint and rely on borders from the last century. We cannot afford to do this. So matter what Wiki (always incorrect) or other sources say, they are not measuring like for like. They list Tokyo with [all] its suburbs but only include London's borough map area - in the same list! Totally unhelpful. Regards London, it is the Southeast suburbs that are physically connected to the urbanised landmass and are one suburbanised area. The last 20 years has seen vast numbers of areas that were once separate but in the commuter-belt, join. All this from new-build (but ugly) development. Most of Southeast England is now one urban area via fingers and joins with the second largest urban rail network in the world meshing it together (after Tokyo). It is actually quite astonishing in global terms, but no-one will shout about it because the British carp and complain all the time. As property developers, this knowledge and analysis is a real help. If you want to see for yourself with the publicly available mapping, go to Bing Maps (not Google as its resolution is much poorer at low level), turn off the layers so you have just the satellite (without names showing), turn up the brightness on your computer, and just watch what happens as you zoom into places that from above look green. Houses - vast numbers of them make themselves clearer as you zoom in - most were not there 20-25 years ago. Kent has seen the largest increase. Go to Surrey, Hampshire and follow the fingers and mansions sat in an acre to two - you will see what would give most English a heart attack if they bothered to undertake such an anorak exercise! A Southeast England that has become London - and all urbanised area is dependent on the capital by majority of its income earners. We have a map where the dark the colour, the higher the percentage of workers and another for income. All of Southeast England is dark to mid-colour. It was shocking how wide and how dependent the area is. Tokyo, New York of course already do this. We have to obtain assistance from others to get this done. There was one reference to data carried out by the former mayor of London that stated London was 21.7 million people in reality and whilst not administratively part of it, must pretend it is so and work with the neighbouring authorities. This was how planning should be. Alas, no such brains now. Low density, leafy suburbs and detached houses explain a lot of the expansion - all fast and all recent.
Liverpool is bigger than most people realise it is! it's massive
Your survey is crap.
Your population figures are way out. With some cities you've included the population of neighbouring boroughs. Liverpool where I live has a population just shy of 500k, not 900k. With Leeds you showed a photo of Bradford and Knaresborough!
Manchester 10th place? You've only included the city council boundaries and not the urban areas, whereas Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham and Bristol you haven't.
Put short, your survey is plainly inaccurate and inconsistent.
,your right /// good fellow
No this is a load of crap
Some of the results given are the urban populations which include surrounding areas. And some are just metropolitan boroughs population. The inconstancies are embarrassing.
I've worked what he's based this on.
Liverpool: He's included the boroughs of Knowsley, Sefton and Wirral. Parts of Knowsley and Sefton are arguably suburbs of Liverpool, but Southport and Formby (both in Sefton) definitely aren't, nor is any of the Wirral.
Manchester: The City of Manchester only.
Birmingham: The whole of the West Midlands county, including Coventry, a city he also used separately.
Nottingham: The defined urban area which includes towns in Derbyshire such as Heanor, Ilkeston and Ripley. None of these should define the city population.
He also thinks Sunderland has a bigger population than Newcastle and Bradford, neither of which made this laughable list.
I think what he's also done is get his stats from Wikipedia, without properly looking into them. As for his photos, well in addition to the errors I've mentioned, he featured Bristol's Park Street in the photos of Sheffield, a photo of New York in London's, and an overseas campus of Nottingham University in Nottingham's.
All in all a badly made, inaccurate video that maybe he'd like to comment on.
@@markcollinson5665 Spot on. Liverpool's urban sprawl stops abruptly at Thornton/Blundellsands/Aintree. You've got to cross open countryside to include any more
A bit odd that you have tallied Manchester's population as the borough and not its urban population. But you have with London, Birmingham and Liverpool.
Exactly this.
Absolutely. The post is worthless nonsense
You’ve done Nottingham urban area but not Manchesters, there urban area is 2.5 million Nottingham city is only 330,000
Yes they got it confused. If they are doing the city population, Nottingham will not be in the top 10 but if they include the Urban Area then it will be in the top 10. Nottingham city boundary is smaller than Bradford, Leicester, Coventry, Bristol and Sheffield but Nottingham Urban Area is bigger than all of the cities that I have mentioned
Hmm the Pictures of Leeds included one of Bradford and one of Knaresborough
I was gonna say the same thing.
one of the ones in sheffield was a picture of bristol
Leeds, Sheffield, Leicester, Bristol, Nottingham are bigger cities than Manchester? Some bad research gone on here
Ikr
This video is full of disinformation ... it consistently confuses the population within city boundaries with the population within the "urban area" (which would include towns, villages and settlements outside the city boundary but part of the same built-up area).
For some reason it includes the entire population of the West Midlands conurbation as living in "Birmingham" but it fails to include the entire population of the Greater Manchester conurbation as being residents of "Manchester". With Leicester it seems to think that the entire population of the outer suburbs (Wigston, Oadby, Birstall etc.) live within the city boundary and it makes some inane comment about the city being very crowded,
All very amateur.
And that street used at 7:00 to illustrate Sheffield is actually Park Street in Bristol!!
I agree Roger. The population of Birmingham is about 1 million. The figure quoted here is the whole of the old West Midlands county. The population of Liverpool is about half a million, not 900000. The population of Nottingham is a 300 000 odd. Bristol just under half a million. The figures for London, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow, however I think are about right.
Complete nonsense I’m sure Manchester is the 2nd city now and Newcastle is definitely more populous than Sunderland. Where did this info come from?
Manchester is nowhere near the second city. Its less than half the size of Birmingham and has a much lower GDP.
Don't be fooled by Manchester it's all hype! it's NOT the second city at all that's what they want you to believe. don't be fooled by "Greater Manchester" that's not manchester itself plus they have made the county far too big and swallowed up Bolton and Wigan ( Lancashire ) and Sale and other towns from Cheshire it's a farce even Salford isn't in manchester. Leeds, Liverpool and Glasgow are all bigger cities
Coventry was historically in Warwickshire and it’s part of the West Midlands county now
Manchester - great football clubs... posts the insides of the Emirates Stadium! Didn't know that College Green was also in Sheffield!? I feel confused
It's not, it's in Bristol. One of many inaccuracies in this badly put together video.
@@markcollinson5665 Yeah, a shitload of the other vids are done so equally badly. I've been sardonically posting on every ill-researched video. Ironically, having worked in Bristol for 5 years, I never really bothered to go up college green. The borderline was drawn at the bear pit!
London is amazingly beautiful, greetings from Muhdi Official🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
Spot on this list! You got it correct
Rubbish
I am from Nottingham and this is incorrect. You took the Nottingham Urban Area not the city population. The city population is around 330.000 which is 14th/15th largest city but the Urban Area actually shoots it up to 7th largest
do u just make up the numbers mate? A simple google search shows updated populations of these cities so I have no idea how you’ve got it this wrong
Biggest surprise for me is that Manchester is only at number 10.
Manchester is a lot smaller than people think.
@@webbzz91 correct
Great information, friend. Your video is very interesting. Thanks.
This video is riddled with inaccuracies. For example, Glasgow is thd 3rd largest city in the UK.
You quote London...Greater London.. but the rest are smaller local authority areas. Greater Manchester is 2.8 million in ten boroughs...A pointless exercise then.
wtf does "...the home to the world's oldest football, competing in the F A" mean? @ 6.36
im from sheffield. its saying that sheffield wednesday is the oldest ever football team
@@shayyuss He didn't say club, he said football. As if there is an actual football that has been doing the rounds since time immemorial in the FA(what?). Such and odd way of saying that. So poorly said.
Also, Sheffield FC is recognised as the oldest club in the world, still playing, by FIFA.
the only correct list of UK cities on RUclips
Spot on
Complete rubbish! The population of the City of London is tiny! You have gone only for the Urban area. Why not do this for the urban areas of the other cities. If you are going for the population of London within the M25 why not include the population of Greater Manchester which would make it 2 or 3?
Glasgows population is 1.8 million if we’re counting euro populations as you have with Nottingham Liverpool Birmingham and London or 633,000 if it is the city population
More people live in Sunderland than Newcastle? Don’t think that’s right
Need to consider like for like not a mix of population within city boundaries and others including their urban areas. Best and most accurate measure of actual size includes the urban area.
No, it's not that 'we won't find any cities from Northern Ireland', it's that 'you' didn't find any cities from Northern Ireland in your limited research. There's well over half a million in Belfast.
What about Reading? It has more than 400,000 people. Would that not be considered populous?
You've got this list absolutely spot on 💪
No they haven't, not even remotely.
@@markcollinson5665 All depends which City you're from.
@@paulweston5665 It depends on accuracy not how much you want to big up your own city.
Glad to hear it!
True Paul they did get it spot on
The population in these cities has already gone up since this was made...
Surely cities with a bigger environmental radius will have a bigger population...on that basis...Manchester must have a greater count than Liverpool
Nope, Liverpool is bigger
Pure crap, get your facts right
Please make a video about Canada🌹🌹🌹
This list is completely wrong.
London isnt a city.
The City of London only has a population of about 7,000.
WRONG City of London is one of the UK's SMALLEST Cities. City of London has a population of around 9,000. London is made up of 2 Cities and 32 Boroughs. The other City in London. Since 1539 City of Westminster has a population of around 261,000. The population quoted in the video is that of Greater London which is not a City.
Newcastle has a bigger population than Sunderland.
Exactly!
@@markcollinson5665 it’s really strange this video I don’t know what it’s based on the Newcastle city council say that the population was 300,820 (2019) and on the Sunderland city council website it said they had a population of 277,962.
@@SameerKhalid. Exactly, and Sunderland's population includes outlying towns such as Washington and Houghton-le-Spring. The actual city population is near 175k.
Sunderland Borough has a bigger population than Newcastle & if you're taking the actual places Edinburgh has 1 million in its vicinity. I've worked every big city in the UK. I'm from Sunderland so I know both Newcastle & Sunderland well. I've just finished working in Edinburgh for 5 months & it's easily bigger than Newcastle & more populated. Newcastle is highly built up but only in a small area but they've got North Tyneside & Gateshead next to it so that trebles the local population. Sheffield has the largest population for a single city by the way
@@DavyRo His population quotes used urban areas when it suited.
Newcastle has a population of 302k, Sunderland including Washington and Houghton, both is 278k.
Birmingham has the biggest city population by a long way (outside London) although Sheffield does have a high population.
London residents per square metre, really per square metre or square kilometre?
Interesting that you've put a picture of Knaresborough in the piece on Leeds. To my knowledge Knaresborough is in a completely different county to Leeds, North Yorkshire as opposed to West Yorkshire.
Try check everything is correct before you put it out there.
This is not including refugees ,illegal immigrants!! And the poor British homeless citizens on our streets
Fifteen minutes cities next. 😎
Dublin?
York city?
York is tiny
This list of cities is in the correct order. well done
If you did some real research you'd realise it isn't. The inconsistencies are unreal.
@@markcollinson5665 as i said this list of cities is in the correct order
@@steveharrison7328 Only in your imagination.
@@grahamsmith9541 eh? what are you on about? do your research before you comment
@@steveharrison7328 well first off London at first place. City of London has a population of around 9,000. Should not be in this list. I lived in London. It's YOU that needs to do research before commenting.
This is wrong on so many levels you cant compile a list of populations of UK cities wheres some are populations within city limits and others that includes urban and metro areas and then go on to list them in order of population this is not the way to do it as you can see Nottingham is not bigger than Glasgow and there are other examples on this video
so london has 5701 people per square metre????? hahahaha
And nottingham also is a big educational city with all the universities and colleges that are here
Strange use of numbers, giving strange results!
total rubbish! liverpool doesnt have over 900k population! you have put som cities metro populations and others council population! total inaccurate
Nottingham doesn’t have a population no we’re near 700k and Liverpool isn’t that big by population Google it most of these videos are wrong the top two is right but the rest is wrong
Manchester is Blue
Such tiny cities 😬
I hope some day you make a video about the cities or towns in UK with lot of Muslim population. Who can tell me this please?.
Luton has got to be in top 10 of large Muslim areas
Bradford😱
Sheffield full of graffiti every where
This isn’t correct
i suggest the maker of this goes back to school to learn how to count
This is wholly incorrect. If measured by urbanised landmass (as all other countries in the world do) with centres where the surrounding area is dependent on them, and stop measuring cities that are actually suburbs of other cities which is an historic anomaly, then the largest cities are as follows: 1) London: 24 million 2) Manchester metropolitan area 5.7 million 3) Birmingham metro area 4.8 million 4) Glasgow metro area 2.5 million 5) Leeds: 2.4 million 6) Liverpool: 2.2 million 7) Newcastle (which includes Sunderland economically speaking): 2 million 8) Sheffield 1.85 million
Where in the world did you get these figures, pretty sure birmingham is is like 4.2m and manchester is 3.8 m, not sure about the others but the only way manchester is 5.8 is if u included liverpool as part of the metro area otherwise i have no idea where u found 2 milllion people around manchester. And isnt 23 million like the whole of southern england?
@@Christian-uj1mq The figures are based on our property company and others' combined data that shows the commuter flows and incomes of those flows set against the contiguous suburbanised landmass. In 2020, the economic footprint whereby land is contiguously urbanised and economically dependent on its core city gives the numbers above. In fact, Birmingham is slightly larger IF Telford was connected to Birmingham's suburban area and it almost is. That would give 5 million for Birmingham. Manchester does not need to include Liverpool. Liverpool and Manchester combined would see 8 million people or so. Manchester holds most of Lancashire, Cheshire, a western portion of Derbyshire plus Greater Manchester itself etc. This alone is in excess of 5.1 million. That is before we include illegal migrants or the economically dependent (for value added, non-state jobs) of Stoke. Birmingham does not have the transport infrastructure to pose any footprint on this area, Manchester however, does. We suspect that this is to do with the rail transport being too poor via Wolverhampton but remains to be proven. We have done this journey on research trips and it is clear why no-one would do it. That said, North Stoke is more strongly attached economically and is physically connected via the Cheshire suburbs. It is however, much poorer, whilst the joint second wealthiest part of England sits right on its border with Prestbury, Wilmslow etc.
The numbers you refer to are the decades outdated 'city region' numbers which for a property developer are as irrelevant as a water bucket and well when you have tap water. We have to commission and do our own research as the powers that be in the UK refuse to measure cities by their urban area and economic footprint and rely on borders from the last century. We cannot afford to do this. So matter what Wiki (always incorrect) or other sources say, they are not measuring like for like. They list Tokyo with [all] its suburbs but only include London's borough map area - in the same list! Totally unhelpful. Regards London, it is the Southeast suburbs that are physically connected to the urbanised landmass and are one suburbanised area. The last 20 years has seen vast numbers of areas that were once separate but in the commuter-belt, join. All this from new-build (but ugly) development. Most of Southeast England is now one urban area via fingers and joins with the second largest urban rail network in the world meshing it together (after Tokyo). It is actually quite astonishing in global terms, but no-one will shout about it because the British carp and complain all the time. As property developers, this knowledge and analysis is a real help.
If you want to see for yourself with the publicly available mapping, go to Bing Maps (not Google as its resolution is much poorer at low level), turn off the layers so you have just the satellite (without names showing), turn up the brightness on your computer, and just watch what happens as you zoom into places that from above look green. Houses - vast numbers of them make themselves clearer as you zoom in - most were not there 20-25 years ago. Kent has seen the largest increase. Go to Surrey, Hampshire and follow the fingers and mansions sat in an acre to two - you will see what would give most English a heart attack if they bothered to undertake such an anorak exercise! A Southeast England that has become London - and all urbanised area is dependent on the capital by majority of its income earners. We have a map where the dark the colour, the higher the percentage of workers and another for income. All of Southeast England is dark to mid-colour. It was shocking how wide and how dependent the area is. Tokyo, New York of course already do this. We have to obtain assistance from others to get this done. There was one reference to data carried out by the former mayor of London that stated London was 21.7 million people in reality and whilst not administratively part of it, must pretend it is so and work with the neighbouring authorities. This was how planning should be. Alas, no such brains now. Low density, leafy suburbs and detached houses explain a lot of the expansion - all fast and all recent.
Complete rubbish. where on earth did you get your figures?
Take this down, it’s utter nonsense
Laugh at Stoke!full of druggie everywhere !!
ffs