When is it ok to build new developments all over National Park designated land or an AONB sites or the green belt?

Possible answers….
1. When the developer has contributed large sums to the ruling party in government.
2. When the developer is a mason.
3. When the development is for “SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY”, because that is totally different from an INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
4. When the development is for “AFFORDABLE HOUSING”, because that is totally different from a HOUSING ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.
5. When the country is totally knackered and the only option is to rape what little natural wonders we have left in order to save the bankers and moneypeople from being made to pay for their own mess.
6. All five of the above.
7. None of the above (I put that there because I always moan it isn’t an option on ballot papers etc when I think it should be)

Seriously………I get AFFORDABLE, that’s because they’ve sold off all the council houses, BUT WTF is SUSTAINABLE when it’s at home?

Also seriously……Did you know that the Lake Disrict National Park Authority has a department actively identifying numerous sites all over the National Park to earmark them for development. This is the body set up to protect the park from development. Not good boys and girls.

What’s happening in AONBs, GREEN BELT and NATIONAL PARKS near you?

It’s happening in the field surrounding my house -2,000 homes, 50% affordable just to tick boxes and allow building on a ‘site of special nature interest’.

So, tell us all what, where and when.
BTW the law was given Royal Assent this week.

why should we be protecting green belt just because someone years ago said it was green belt. Remember green belt does not mean undeveloped and never did.

As for development, well the population is growing, which means more housing. There are plenty of underused houses but asking some old person to move out of their 3 bed semi to allow a young family to move in isn’t going to happen as it is an infringement of civil rights. Telling people that you are not allowed to own unused housing isn’t going to happen either.

So what is left, building crap bovis boxes!

I am in favour of building houses, much of the UKs stock is getting on, it is not very efficient, it would provide jobs, training etc, but the standard brick and block/wood frame plaster board that seems normal is not the way forward.

As an aside, how much of the UK is natural? none of it, the national parks and AONBs exist in the way they do because of the way they have been used. Be it sheep grazing, cattle, oak plantations, grouse or deer, etc etc.
Do we want a functioning countryside where people live and work or do we want a chocolate box reserved for holiday makers?

it’s generally accepted that there are three aspects of consideration to ‘sustainable development’:

economic, social, and environmental.

But it’s not easy getting people to agree how to balance them, so, you can pass more or less anything off as ‘sustainable development’.

Do we want a functioning countryside where people live and work or do we want a chocolate box reserved for holiday makers?

Chocolate box please, there’s plenty of space in brownfield sites for all the extra homes needed, they just cost a little more to develop so people go for the cheaper green sites. Disgraceful – we should be in-filling all the eyesore ruins (by compulsory purchase if necessary) rather than sprawling outward.

there’s plenty of space in brownfield sites

I guess that is very dependent on where you live and what you count as brown field. The amount of complaints you get if you suggest garden grabbing round here!

Theres nothing wrong per se with building in a national park. E.g. the Cairngorms National Park covers some 4,500sq km and houses over 17,000 residents. It would be foolish to suggest that all development should cease. People who live in national parks have a right to houses and jobs too.

I rather understood from the petrol thread that most stw-ers were quite happy to commute 60-80 miles each way a day from their toffee tin picture villages. Why would they care?

mrmo – Member

why should we be protecting green belt just because someone years ago said it was green belt.

As far as I can tell, the rules are that if you’ve got a bunch of travellers building in a greenbelt-zoned bit of land, which actually is a derelict scrapyard, then that’s completely unacceptable. But if you’ve got Tesco building on a green site that’s actually green, and 250 metres from a massive brownfield site, then that’s fine.

Tesco’s and the like use section 106 agreements to get their way. In terms of sustainable development we do need to move away from the traditional brick and block house’s we Brit’s appear to love.

Building new housing in the National Parks is pointless with out generating employment so “local” people can actually buy them. Also once the house is sold in the future what stops none locals buying these homes?

I think it should be mandatory that new developments have some form of micro generation units associated with them such as PV tiles and wind turbines as well as rain water collection for the use of toilet flushing etc. A lot can be done but without stricter legislative requirements then no house builder is going to do this.

2hottie – you should like this then? http://www.rothiemurchus.net/ancamasmor/index.html

Frightening

I’m more pessimistic now than I was last night

billyboy – Member
Did you know that the Lake Disrict National Park Authority has a department actively identifying numerous sites all over the National Park to earmark them for development. This is the body set up to protect the park from development.

Actually, this is from the LDNPA website…

Planning for the future
Our role in planning is not just to control development but to support the management of development with people – not alone.

My emphasis.

There’s too many people wanting houses. This should be discouraged.

The Victorians handled this problem neatly. It was called slums where multiple families occupied one house, or in some cases, rooms.

Alternatively kill our children and aged population to decrease housing pressure.

Any other alternatives to development? It’s got to happen unless you’re prepared to cull the population or squeeze them into slums.

Yes this affects the Bouy houshold too. 2000 new houses, 51% affordable, being built across the road from the farm “uoop north”.

Possible answers….
3. When the development is for “SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY”, because that is totally different from an INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
4. When the development is for “AFFORDABLE HOUSING”, because that is totally different from a HOUSING ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.

These excuses are just smoke and mirrors

Everything boils down to somebody somewhere making a load of money out of it

Yes this affects the Bouy houshold too. 2000 new houses, 51% affordable, being built across the road from the farm “uoop north”.

Where is that?

I will find the link to the building that may go ahead, completely surrounding us…

Here you go – first post shows our present view, further down the thread I have marked the massive development that is planned…

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-know-about-planning-blight-andor-challenged-developments