Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Must protect thou arbitrarily placed greenbelts, but some progress is being made.

New village plan to protect Cheshire greenbelt

A new village of nearly 2,000 homes could be built to avoid expanding existing villages into Cheshire's greenbelt. The development, called the North Cheshire Growth Village, near Handforth is part of the proposed new Local Plan. It would mean only 1% of greenbelt land would be at risk of development, the council said. Council leader Michael Jones said: "Rather than increasing the size of villages in the north and south, we are proposing a new village. Does anybody even consider the fact that the greenbelts may have been incorrectly drawn up 60 years ago or need adjusting according to the population growth of a particular area?

Posted by khards @ 11:57 AM (2109 views)
Please complete the required fields.



12 thoughts on “Must protect thou arbitrarily placed greenbelts, but some progress is being made.

  • “Does anybody even consider the fact that the greenbelts may have been incorrectly drawn up 60 years ago or need adjusting according to the population growth of a particular area?”

    Heresy! You maniac! You want to concrete over the entire countryside, let in hundreds of millions of immigrants putting pressure on local services and we will all starve to death!

    Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 8: “And on the eighth day, God said, you know what, just to make this entirely clear, the world I have created will reach absolute perfection in about AD 1946 and from that day on, there will never be need for another building”

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 🙂

    On the plus side it is nice to hear there is little objection to building new villages (that are not retirement villages).

    Makes me laugh how almost everyone in every village, town and city in the UK obejcts building because it will cause more traffic and the are not enough schools and hospitals.

    Where infrastructure do they think the existing people who will move into the new houses will use?

    It is like they think that when they build the new homes they also build the people to put in them rather than shifting population from one overcrowded area to another.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • considering that most of the cost of housing is land value anyway, if they spent more money on building nice homes and amenities i doubt people would object to these new villages. who hates a pretty village?

    khards. i agree mainly with your point, but people migrate to countries almost totally for economic reasons. The state of public services, cost of living, housing, etc does have a impact on these economic considerations. there are other larger factors obviously. we have net immigration (or more who would come if they could) because of our quality of life, economy and free public services. Also there are people, possibly yourself, who left the uk due to the cost of housing. So if we built a bunch of new housing and reduced housing costs this would have some (maybe only small) increase to immigration and reduction to emigration.
    (I myself am leveling the uk in two weeks. one of the considerations for not staying is the cost of housing here, however i’m going to moscow which is crazy expensive, so i can’t claim it’s the main consideration. however i wont comment on the flat 13% tax.)

    yes, objections to housing is nimby rather than some concern for national level impact to the objections they raise.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • meant to add that an increase of population without more provision of services will obviously lead to lower levels of services, congestion etc.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • What also winds me up is these people complaining about pesky newcomers putting pressure on “their” local services.

    Now, the way I understand it, we all pay our taxes and so on and the government spends some of that on schools and hospitals for everybody’s benefit. So I pay my taxes, happy in the knowledge that kids go to school and ill people get looked after.

    So I’ve paid for my little share of the school in Village X and the hospital in Town Y, and those services are not – to my mind – purely for the benefit of existing Home-Owner-Ists who live there, but for anybody else who chooses to move there in future.

    “Free” education and health is a sort of right or entitlement for everybody, I don’t see why you are supposed to lose or forfeit that right or entitlement if you move from one part of the country to another (seeing as most of the people moving will themselves be paying the taxes to pay for the schools and hospitals in the first place).

    What the Homeys in Village X are saying is effectively this – Mr A and his family are from Newcastle and he wants to move to Village X. So we are happy for him to pay his taxes to part-fund the school in Village X (for our benefit), but if he wants his kids to go to school, we don’t want them in Village X School (because that’s “ours” even though Mr A is paying as much towards it as we are), they have to commute back to Newcastle.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • i remember the 90`s says:

    Its not Mr A from Newcastle its Mr B from Romania with his clan that bother me .

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @6 – That’s like someone from Texas complaining that someone from California has moved next door. I recall the NATZI’s didn’t like the Jews for some reason?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • MW – yr right. Say if fred remains single, has no kids is never ill and pays premium for private health care. Sue, a single mum, on the other hand has 8 kids smokes and binge drinks and is obese and and has sick children. Since she has 8 kids she cant work.

    Fred is physically fit and does a number of workouts a week, he takes vitamins etc to take care of himself.

    Fred has to pay tax (whever he lives) to pay his share of the pooled resources, even though he doesnt use the schools or hospitals. Not only that but he gets no tax relief for his cost of going to the gym or for maintaing his health or for his private health care. In fact he gets taxed on the premiums if he was working for an employer as a benefit in kind.

    Go figure!

    Techieman – Swallowed a Daily Mail followed by a Torygraoh today!

    The fact is if i were fred i wouldnt actually object but the inequities in the UK are always shown to exist for Sue, if there are more Sues Fred just gets clobbered with more taxes.

    BTW im not being sexist, you can reverse the names if that sits better.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @ 6 – and you are 50th generation English? We are all immigrants!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @9 – Am am a migrant because I got the hell out of the UK.

    Once you emigrate to another country you realize how pointless immigration / the which ever country you were born in argument is.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • For me the key to the migration issue is entitlements. only people who feel they are entitled to things, i.e. free money, land, public services are worried about immigration.

    oh those immigrates are taking our – jobs; housing; services; land, etc. if you only get what you work for, then having other people here is less of an issue.

    the whole concept that you were born on a piece of land within an imaginary line drawn on a piece of paper gives you a set of entitlements is ridiculous when you stop to objectivily think about it. it all comes down to the defence of entitlement to taking other people labour, which is the basis of our tax and spend society.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Nod: “only people who feel they are entitled to things, i.e. free money, land, public services are worried about immigration”

    That is very true, I must remember that riposte in future.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • 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

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>