Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
The state of nature
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 15 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Neither do you.

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 15 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

No, but I know how ruthless big business is when they want something.
I dont envy this man at all despite the amounts of money.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 15 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I don't envy him either, trying to farm that close to a major settlement. It's bad enough with the village & people thinking they can do what & go wherever they want on farmland.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15542

PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

We have the problem of people coming out from the town, and most people living in the 'villages' being townspeople. They think the countryside is a playground for them and not a working environment.

Otley Lad, there are a lot of births, but over the next 20 years there will probably be a lot of deaths too. The post war baby boomers are getting into their 70s now, so they will be disappearing over the next 20 years or so. Although I can't see that decreasing the population, it is going to make a big difference. A birth rate of 1.84 is also going to long term result in fewer people too. As long as the birth rate plus immigration ends up with a population rise of less than 2 per couple, we should see fewer people.

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

It has nothing to do with need & all to do with greed.
My county council has stated they will allow permission for nearly 50,000 homes in the next twenty years. Independent estimates claim the need is only 13,000. We have a proposed development for nearly two thousand dwellings a couple of miles away that hasn't even been submitted for official planning yet, only in the consultation stage. Yet highways have built a slip road off the main road to feed it!!!??
Talk about a done deal.
When I attended a local town council meeting with regards to the above the planning officer was so pally with the representative from the developers you would think they where sharing a bed, certainly not impartial.
When big business says jump you jump or you get squashed, the facts of life. Including it seems local politicians & bureaucrats.
The only hope this farmer has of fighting them off is if he can get enough community support through the internet & locally. 38degrees, facebook etc.
When my father was fighting the local mining company he was one man against a multinational & didn't stand a chance.
& yes I know I've got a big chip on my shoulder. I've good reason.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 45385
Location: yes
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

multinationals (and those with "friends"in power can be successfully opposed).

tis hard and can be dangeroos but it can be done.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Need and greed - interesting theory, but there's a massive gap between 13,000 and 50,000. Surely greed relies upon fulfilling a need/demand and they can't be relying upon people having an extra 3 houses in addition to the one they live in. Or is it purely holiday homes down there?

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 45385
Location: yes
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

perhaps ask for a town and get a village

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Rob R wrote:
Need and greed - interesting theory, but there's a massive gap between 13,000 and 50,000. Surely greed relies upon fulfilling a need/demand and they can't be relying upon people having an extra 3 houses in addition to the one they live in. Or is it purely holiday homes down there?
13,000 is to fulfil the needs of the current population & their dependants.
The further 37,000 I assume will be a combination of second homes, retirees from elsewhere & inner city overspill. A lot of people are being priced out of social housing in London & elsewhere by developers, they will have to live somewhere.
You can buy a new two bed semi here for less than you would pay for a bedsit in London.
I'm not against development but it has to be sustainable.
This much in a County the size of Cornwall, geographically very small, & with very poor infrastructure isn't sustainable. Quite the opposite.

NorthernMonkeyGirl



Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 4584
Location: Peeping over your shoulder
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

If we're talking about housing developments, I do accept they need to happen. However, the way we do them now is ridiculous. Teeny tiny boxes squashed onto some floodplain land, with no work on infrastructure or facilities... stupid.
We should be looking at green towns/cities. A modern version of the garden cities if you like. Food production, green spaces for health, designing around pedestrians and cyclists (but with room for plumbers in their transit vans), you know the drill. PV panels on buildings, greywater recycling. Why aren't we doing this already??

onemanband



Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1473
Location: NCA90
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Agree with you there NMG. The edge of town development and infilling has peaked and we need big solutions. IMO the so called 'garden cities' proposed in Kent and Cambridgeshire(?) are just greenwash and will be more of what you mention .........tiny boxes with pointless gardens and crap parking.
Plenty of people don't want gardens, so why not build some houses without and give other houses proper useable gardens for those that want them ?
New estates round here all seem to have off-road parking. My theory is that eliminating on-road parking means the public highway can be narrower (and cheaper), which means you can squeeze in more houses and can 'add value' to the property cos it has off-road parking. However because every body owns their drive and the parking spaces cannot be shared it means visitor/tradesman/delivery parking is crap and it doesn't balance out between multi-car households and no-car households.
And garages ? who puts a car in a garage nowadays ? Yet new houses all seem to come with a garage which invariably is filled with unused pushbikes and exercise equipment, or it gets converted.
I could go on ..........

NorthernMonkeyGirl



Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 4584
Location: Peeping over your shoulder
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Communal residents' car-parks don't seem to work well (as typified by a lot of council / housing estates I've seen). Why not "mews" arrangements with a garage as your bottom storey. Build up! Or on "difficult" sloped sites build into the hillside. Trouble with that is it takes individual consideration instead of copy/pasting the little boxes across your map.

Back-to-backs are pretty efficient ways of building small homes where everyone gets a front door and a little yard. Would they meet modern building regulations though? Stuff the walls with heat and sound insulation though!

Big developments by housing associations should have compulsory water recycling, renewable power, green roofs, etc. I know estates that don't even have recycling bins!

onemanband



Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1473
Location: NCA90
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

NorthernMonkeyGirl wrote:
Communal residents' car-parks don't seem to work well

No it's the people that don't work well.

Yes, I've seen a couple of mews type developments that function well.

NorthernMonkeyGirl



Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 4584
Location: Peeping over your shoulder
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 15 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

onemanband wrote:
NorthernMonkeyGirl wrote:
Communal residents' car-parks don't seem to work well

No it's the people that don't work well.

Yes, I've seen a couple of mews type developments that function well.


Environments prompt or discourage certain behaviours though.

Anyway, it's a pain to lug shopping from a car park

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 45385
Location: yes
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 15 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

in places with space there is little need of wage slaves so small homes with big gardens makes sense ,that might need more area but it is more sustainable than broilers for unwanted flesh .

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com