A view to treasure

[peterairfix]

Here a three views that In a year's time will not be possible due to rapid building of house's were I live even my house forty years ago was a field were I used to play.
So it's get while I can because in a year's time I will another three from the same spot.
I have included three cropped ones with building site taken out

[KarlW]

My house had a brilliant view across Red Bay to Garron Point before houses got built behind us.

[AlanG]

Got to love all this building on green belt land. Nothing like wasting beautiful countryside whilst all the waste ground (brown belt) in towns and cities is left alone. Wonder how many back handers our local councillors take

[KarlW]

Wonder how many back handers our local councillors take

Here any planning decisions can be overturned by the First or Deputy First Ministers veto.......
And when I was redeveloping my toilet block on the caravan park I ran I got a set of plans from building control, only the building I was given plans for didn't exist, yet had been signed off as completed and fit for purpose, not even a sod of turf lifted.......

Developers don't want to be building affordable or social houses, there's no money in it, never mind the NIMBYism that social housing attracts, so when they go to the "brown belt" they get accused of gentrification....

[Guest]

I feel for you Peter.
When we moved here 50 years ago ( Houses built on an old brown field site ) we could hear the dawn chorus along with Sky Larks. Now the field have gone nothing and more houses certainly not for local people.

[BarryW]

Wonder how many back handers our local councillors take

I served as an elected member of a District Council for 12 years from1983 to 1995. I always avoided the Planning Committee as I always felt that the ‘wrong type’ of person always wanted to be on that one. I was always more focussed on Finance and Policy.

What I can say is that local government is remarkably free from actual corruption despite what some may think. Many have strange attitudes and make odd decisions but the vast majority are elected for the right reasons regardless of what Party they stand for.

[KarlW]

I would agree, there's more hookery with council officers than elected members, though elected members are more likely to come to physical blows........

[BarryW]

I would agree, there's more hookery with council officers than elected members, though elected members are more likely to come to physical blows........

LOL - I did not see physical blows in or outside the Council Chamber in my 12 years between members and I speak as someone who was often controversial. I was once threatened and had a dog set on me in a nearby mining village though!!

[KarlW]

Happens more often than you think here........and you probably never had any bullets in the post, last one here was in March.....

[AlanG]

Many have strange attitudes and make odd decisions but the vast majority are elected for the right reasons regardless of what Party they stand for.

Those strange attitudes are the problem though. It makes that person look corrupt because of their far out, out of touch decision making. I personally think these people should be held far more to account. Especially when it comes to the point of using up green belt land when there is brown belt freely available.

Society has a dis-trust of local and national governments. They don't exactly help themselves change that perception.

[Jim R]

Nothing like wasting beautiful countryside whilst all the waste ground (brown belt) in towns and cities is left alone.

It's all down to money. It is usually cheaper and easier to build in a field just outside town than on a site within the town where the site may need clearing and those in the vicinity are disturbed. In Oswestry, where I live, there is going to be a housing development which will encroach onto the ancient hill fort. Community protests for years but to no avail - money and/or corruption I don't know but my granddaughter is going to grow up in a world with no countryside or farming and derelict town centres. Makes me sad.
Jim

[Guest]

Same problem here. 4000 new homes on prime agricultural land. The city just doesn't have the capacity to cope with the extra population and it's been fought against for years by a strong local campaign group. The developer has even thrown in the softener of a new hospital building, but of course the local NHS trust would have to fit it out and staff it, which it can't afford to do. We await further planning decisions with bated breath.

[Guest]

Happens more often than you think here........and you probably never had any bullets in the post, last one here was in March.....

I don’t think that sort of thing was as common in the 1980s and ’90s as it is today.

It's all down to money. It is usually cheaper and easier to build in a field just outside town than on a site within the town where the site may need clearing and those in the vicinity are disturbed. In Oswestry, where I live, there is going to be a housing development which will encroach onto the ancient hill fort. Community protests for years but to no avail - money and/or corruption I don't know but my granddaughter is going to grow up in a world with no countryside or farming and derelict town centres. Makes me sad.

Where I live, the problem is almost the opposite. Though new parts of towns and villages get built too, in my village in particular there has been a steady campaign of demolish-and-rebuild for the past 15 years or so, with the result that most of the characteristic houses and other buildings in the old village centre have gone and been replaced by modern monstrosities. Here’s a photo I took about a year and a half ago, and posted in another thread on this forum:



Where the building site is there, used to be some houses and shops of similar appearance as the ones you can also see in the photo. Now the building is finished, it’s four storeys high (two normal and two under the roof) and it’s tall enough that I can see it from my window despite there being two-storey-plus-roof houses between me and it. In other words, it is far too tall for the village — and it’s not the only one that has been put up. About ten years ago, a picture in the local newspaper showed a model that had been built for some of these developers to show their plans for the village, and it gave me the impression that they intended to put two bulldozers with a heavy chain between them on one end of the old part of the village, drive them to the other and then clear up the rubble. The medieval church was about all that wasn’t shown as intended for redevelopment.

The reason for this is that we used to have at least one council member who was good buddies with project developers who like to build these kinds of things. Not actual corruption, but if he also turns out to own apartments in buildings that he approved the construction of, I would say there’s certainly a conflict of interest. (Luckily he got removed exactly because of that last year, but even that was far too late if you ask me.)

[KarlW]

I don’t think that sort of thing was as common in the 1980s and ’90s as it is today.

That's where our politics our today. A minister for N. Ireland was appointed who was shocked to find out the majority of voters just decide on "orange or green'.
But I fear this thread may be getting too political.

[BarryW]

There is truth in the lower cost of building on green field sites but local pressure can apply the other way too.

Locally to me the Council want to develop a former land fill site that is near the beach and a historic canal. The site itself is pretty worthless covered in brambles and no access is allowed.

The development includes new sports facilities including a much needed swimming pool. Some of the site is allocated for housing, needed to help pay for the development. The plans are sympathetic to both the canal and beach area and will be a great addition to local amenities.

But there has been a campaign against it by local NIMBIES citing every objection they could possibly dream up, mostly utter nonsense.

The NIMBIES are suggesting an alternative green field site outside of town that everybody would have to travel to!!! Paying for it would also be an issue.

The irony is that those leading the campaign are also green campaigners.

Anyway planning permission granted, judicial review refused so hopefully development will start soon on the land fill.