Monday, Aug 16, 2010
Re what Uncle Tom said on Rightmove thread
BBC: Voting on new home schemes 'could tear villages apart'
Uncle Tom: "I do hope Grant Shapps recognises the imperative of cutting through the environmental red tape; in pursuit of getting more homes built.". Fat chance: "Government plans to hold local referendums on new housing schemes in England could tear village communities apart, rural campaigners have said. They say plans to require 80-90% of local people to approve new building schemes in villages would create conflict and bring projects to a halt..."
Posted by mark wadsworth @ 10:37 AM (2762 views) Add Comment
19 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. mark said...
This is what damages communities, not nice houses
read this link
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/08/13/sainsbury-s-superstore-plans-for-crosby-recommended-for-approval-92534-27054369/
2. mark wadsworth said...
I've noticed that too.
When a supermarket opens, the area usually becomes unfit for human habitation, which is why most supermarkets are surrounded by empty houses and shops for miles around. One of the first things a potential buyer should check out is whether there is a supermarket within a mile or so of the house, and if there is, to avoid buying that house at all costs.
3. mark said...
smarta&&
what i was meaning by it, was it is the same as tescos in liverpool, the local community want to stay local, they want local shops, they dont want big stores, this then damages communities by taking away that local feel and community feel, go into any local shop people will be chatting go into a supermarket and they will be low paid workers, no-one is talking, people are rude pushing trollies into you, why is this MW?
Also do you not want to support your local farms and shops who will benefit the local community more than a giant company raking in profits and paying the least amount of tax possible, maybe using offshore havens to hide property and ownership of local properties to stop competition..
M "tescos" W views on why you think supermarkets are good for a community? When so many people fight against them
4. mark said...
Actually MW i have just looked, around an area where a supermarket distribution centre was built there is a very high number of properties for sale, wonder why? As you look further out there are less, the high concentration of for sale appears to be within a mile of the place..
5. titaniccaptain said...
I think the problem comes in when city folk move into rural areas blessing the local communities with higher house prices preventing both the children of the rural community and their own from ever being able to afford a house....
BUT....
The yocals are as to blame for selling their houses to these people.....
So the answer is....if you like the city and the money you earn there......then live there.
If you like working the land and rural community life then you live there.
City folk don't like bumkins chewing straw in their city bars.....and rural folk don't like city folk because city folk are very good at bringing out greed in bumkins and are also not very good at milking cows.
The only udders they are used to grabbing are those of their surgically enhanced wives.
So ban anyone moving to the countryside who has not spent more than 6 months of the year in rural greenery....this can be achieved with a microchip tagging system inserted to anyone who lives in a city.
The tagging system could be accompanied with a 'Wicker man' system where the village goes a little eccentric every year and builds an effigy a city dweller with bowler hat and all....then rounds up all the newly moved in city folk and places them inside the 'Wicker man'.
Then a choice is given to those inside the Wicker man.
Sign over your wealth to the villagers or or you will soon illuminate the sky in the this bit of rural frivolity.
Now then that's what I call giving the people the choice!
6. uncle tom said...
In the village where I live there's quite a lot of enthusiasm for this scheme, but we're waiting for the govt to publish the fine detail before moving ahead.
Essentially, the facilities in the village are all showing their age, and the recreation ground is notoriously stoney. Many houses lack parking space, the pub is struggling, and we are in danger of losing the post office.
Solution: Sell the rec. for housing and buy a better field on the other side of the village to replace it. Use the money to build a new village hall, youth centre and scout hut, plus first class sports facilities at the new recreation ground. Give every house that doesn't have an off street parking space a place to park.
Increasing the size of the village will provide extra trade for the shops and pub, and we should have enough money left over to wipe out the parish precept almost indefinitely.
The only thing we're worried about is the idea of having to get an 80 or 90% vote in favour - it's too high. 70% is manageable.
7. titaniccaptain said...
@Uncle Tom
NO NO NO don't sell the land....just get the villagers to tithe 5% of income for 6 months from the villagers.
"The only thing we're worried about is the idea of having to get an 80 or 90% vote in favour - it's too high. 70% is manageable."......Not sure I approve of this civilised approach to village life....not enough pitchforks and scrumpy in the democratic process for my liking.
There should always be a strong sense of preserving the character and charm of village life and ensure that identity which has been built up over consecutive generations comes before 21st century mod cons.
8. titaniccaptain said...
ooops that should read "just get the villagers to tithe 5% of income for 6 months for the village pot"
9. mark said...
UT if MW had his way Tescos would fill your village..lol
10. uncle tom said...
"There should always be a strong sense of preserving the character and charm of village life and ensure that identity which has been built up over consecutive generations comes before 21st century mod cons"
That's the urban NIMBY view - the real villagers are hoping a bigger village will persuade a Chinese restaurant to open up.. ;-)
11. titaniccaptain said...
lol UT.......
There is always a downside to genuine yocals and that is inbreeding....only someone who is the love child of a straw twiddler and his sister could want a Chinese and larger shop....
I remember the old shop in Llangynidr where I grew up as a young sprout....the shop was sacred and mystical to the village.....the Saturday panda pop treat sent this young lad into a frenzy.....the till was an old wooden tray of coins.
Rural life used to stick two fingers up to the twentieth century but now it suckles on the same nipple as its city counterpart.....the nipple of greed.
Progress is the name that has justified the cooling in men's hearts and the breakdown of community.
Bah Me hates it all of it
12. powerofnow said...
The people who live in St Ives would like a higher percentage of people of houses to be lived in year round. We don't need more houses built, just more houses lived in. There is a shortage of full time residents in the town.
The wider area needs a few more homes, but we don't need or want them crammed on the edge of our densely packed towns. There is plenty of space between the towns for a few smallish clusters of houses (3-6 houses in a cluster). No one would notice they were there.
The main problem is that people think the UK is overcrowded and overdeveloped, so resist any attempt to build on open spaces. This propaganda was repeated last night on the secret britain program which referred to cracks of open space in the crowded south.
13. mark wadsworth said...
PON, 12, land value tax will sort out all the vacant properties. If we introduced that, we probably wouldn't need to build another house for about ten years (apart from social housing), as we'd jsut shuffle about a bit until all houses are fully occupied.
PS, today is my day for annoying people.
14. mark said...
LVT never going to happen so stop harping on...lol
15. mark wadsworth said...
Mark, of course it's never going to happen.
We will never have LVT, we will never slim down the state to "front line workers" only, we will never get rid of NIMBYs, we will never get rid of "local shopkeepers" who don't want competition, we will never leave the EU or legalise drugs or stop bailing out the banks.
All these vested interests will be stamping the small minority of non-rent seekers in the face for all eternity. If you bracket out all the VIs, subsidy junkies, corporatists etc, it's about a fifth of the UK population subsidising the rest.
16. mark said...
Yet when the majority speak the councils or governments don't listen...
17. Jan said...
I don't know why second home owners are not made to pay the full amount of council tax on their properties. This might help to level the playing field a little (in the absence of LVT which may happen at a later date). I agree it's a scandal if lovely places like St Ives are full of cottages which are for the most part empty while local FTBs are priced out.
18. drewster said...
Mark W,
Not all supermarkets are so bad. I wouldn't want to live next door to a large one, but smaller scale supermarkets (e.g. Tesco Metro) are very convenient and I personally find it very useful living near one. I don't think they particularly suck the life out of the local community, unless you like paying over the odds for basics. The money I save by shopping at the supermarket is spent on other local businesses instead. Independent corner shops are a dying business model, just like record shops.
Issues about monosopistic practices and over-dominance of one supermarket in a town should be dealt with by the Competition Commission, who (in my opinion) have failed terribly to quell the dominance of the big chains.
19. paul said...
UT@10
Indeed. It is the urban dwellers and holiday home letters who want to preserve villages in aspic. Villagers (as in village dwellers) want development, jobs, a chinese takeaway, a marks and spencers and hey even a spearmint rhinos (or equivalent) tucked away in a side street.
Some here may think I'm joking.