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so, with the result that most of the characteristic houses and other buildings in the old village centre have gone and been replaced by modern monstrosities.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.)