24th July 2010, 12:15 PM
The Invisible man said,
to protect their own pseudo-rural lifestyle and property values, but how many have the faintest idea how to go about a development, or what might constitute good or bad, over (or under) development, architecture, road layout, infrastructure, security, effects on roads, schools etc. and so on?
Vulpes said
"But will please those who wish to see no development in their twee commuter belt villages (Tory voters)."
As I write this from my twee commuter village where I enjoy a pseudo-rural lifestyle - it is the most desirable village in the south of England. I would like to point out I do not vote Tory.
I must say that I think that excluding tree hugging town dwellers from the process is potentially a good thing. The issues of rural social housing are complex. The current system is unsatisfactory especially how the housing targets are set. The basic issue is who should have the right to a massive subsidy in their accommodation to allow them to live somewhere nice, with good schools, low crime and a higher life expectancy (we also have good shops, restaurants, pubs, a thriving live music scene excellent public transport links)?
There are already social housing schemes built on green belt land- these are called rural exception sites so there is no change in this. What this policy does is allow us to decide what happens in our own village not by people who live elsewhere. I live in where nine villages are represented by two councillors. Our two district councillors are not from our village they live in other villages and how the boundaries have been set works against the democratic wishes of the people of the village.
In terms of the expertise required to do a small housing scheme yes we as a village damn well do have these skills. With a professor of architecture (and a dozen others), a professor of Town and Country Planning (former Head of planning with a LPA), dozens of property developers, engineers, site managers, project managers, builders, ecologists, transport surveys and land surveyors there are very few skills we lack as a village to do this kind of project.
As for the annoying oiks whinging about their precious badgers or ancient bones yes that exactly how you are perceived. Realistically how many village sites are there where there are major archaeological difficulties (mine is one of these) which can't be sorted out by a bit of mitigation?
As to which way our community would decide to go that remains to be seen and will depend upon the detail of the proposal, the design and who can live in these houses.
Peter
to protect their own pseudo-rural lifestyle and property values, but how many have the faintest idea how to go about a development, or what might constitute good or bad, over (or under) development, architecture, road layout, infrastructure, security, effects on roads, schools etc. and so on?
Vulpes said
"But will please those who wish to see no development in their twee commuter belt villages (Tory voters)."
As I write this from my twee commuter village where I enjoy a pseudo-rural lifestyle - it is the most desirable village in the south of England. I would like to point out I do not vote Tory.
I must say that I think that excluding tree hugging town dwellers from the process is potentially a good thing. The issues of rural social housing are complex. The current system is unsatisfactory especially how the housing targets are set. The basic issue is who should have the right to a massive subsidy in their accommodation to allow them to live somewhere nice, with good schools, low crime and a higher life expectancy (we also have good shops, restaurants, pubs, a thriving live music scene excellent public transport links)?
There are already social housing schemes built on green belt land- these are called rural exception sites so there is no change in this. What this policy does is allow us to decide what happens in our own village not by people who live elsewhere. I live in where nine villages are represented by two councillors. Our two district councillors are not from our village they live in other villages and how the boundaries have been set works against the democratic wishes of the people of the village.
In terms of the expertise required to do a small housing scheme yes we as a village damn well do have these skills. With a professor of architecture (and a dozen others), a professor of Town and Country Planning (former Head of planning with a LPA), dozens of property developers, engineers, site managers, project managers, builders, ecologists, transport surveys and land surveyors there are very few skills we lack as a village to do this kind of project.
As for the annoying oiks whinging about their precious badgers or ancient bones yes that exactly how you are perceived. Realistically how many village sites are there where there are major archaeological difficulties (mine is one of these) which can't be sorted out by a bit of mitigation?
As to which way our community would decide to go that remains to be seen and will depend upon the detail of the proposal, the design and who can live in these houses.
Peter