Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
VacantPossession

Green Belt By Stealth - Do As You're Told

Recommended Posts

There are now very few decent areas where ordinary people can live. Local authority planning, bogus "sustainability" regulations, restrictive convenents and green belt policies which contradict original green belt intentions have in the last decade brought about an Orwellian regime whereby ordinary people even on larger than average incomes, never mind the less fortunate, are virtually being instructed thus:

"You'll live where WE tell you to live, so shut up and do as you're told".

Green belt policies were meant to stop just one thing: Urban sprawl. They were never intended to prevent building in areas which have no particular status such as "outstanding natural beauty", national parks, or vital land for liesure activities.

Yet local authorities are not only preventing the building of good quality housing except in areas THEY want to hurd people into, they are even dictating usage of existing homes using spurious and farcical reasons all based on the whim of unelected planning staff. Moreover their bonkers and technically illegal and unenforceable decisions are often fully supported by those who have ALREADY managed to gain a foothold in agreeable landscapes and then arrogantly tell everyone else to get lost through multiple planning objections aimed at others they perceive as getting in on their act.

I will give examples of the above:

Cornwall is to my mind a definitive example. I lived there for a few years so I am familiar with what has happened there. From 1997 onwards, local authorities embarked on a disastrous housing policy. They allowed free reign to a small minority of Cornish residents and many investers outside the area to build quality accomodation then slapped on restrictions designating thousands of these properties as either second homes-only or holiday-only housing.

The result has been catastrophic. That small minority has pocketed millions at the expense of ordinary residents of Cornwall who have been virtually shut out of any decent housing unless they are prepared to find funds way in excess of what they could possibly raise even if they cheated or lied.

The restrictions as to use were, quite stupidly, intended to promote tourism. But this has backfired, since it is well recognised that the "sustainability" of Cornwall cannot be achieved by tourism alone. In fact as each year passes and Cornwall is perceived to be a richer county through tourism, the actual position is that it continues to be one of the poorest counties in the UK, and a vast proportion of potentially good housing remains locked up and unused for 3 to 5 months of the year. Furthermore it has through poor distribution of funding discouraged anyone from improving property except for tourism reasons and the result is that Cornwall is full of boutique hotels and over-priced B&B's while the actual population of Cornwall gets the total dregs...extremely poor and still expensive housing of lamentable quality.

Dartmoor is another classic example, due to the influence of ex-judges, advertising retirees and wealthy second home owners etc within Dartmoor's borders, who have through manipulation of planning regulations and bogus "green/sustainability" arguments, effectively taken over the whole place for their own use, while those who serve them are virtually bussed in and out for the purposes of being effectively their personal slaves, whether staffing shops, offering utility services or cleaning their homes. The result is that almost the whole of the Dartmoor area is a virtual mini-state, but instead of having a passport control, the gates of entry are entirely controlled by retirement money. In all but name this large area of Devon has reverted to a medieval state of lords and surfs. Most of this has been achieved by use of a quasi green belt argument which in effect says: I have arrived here and claimed my pile, and now I've got my foot in the door, the rest of you can sod off....oh, except when I need you to sell me a bottle of agreeable claret or service my car.

Let's turn to Norfolk, whose North Norfolk local authority has used its sustainability policy to apply random and irrational covenents and restrictions as to use on hundreds of barn conversions, restored houses and former agricultural buildings. The majority of these restrictions, as with Cornwall, involve slapping "holiday-only", or even worse, "second-home only" limits on occupation. The skewed logic of this is that the planning authority arrogantly designates these buildings as unsustainable as permanent dwellings but without any statistical or plausible evidence to demonstrate it. Moreover, the largest proportion of income those holiday-houses generate are NOT circulated into the Norfolk economy, because the majority of owners of these conversions live outside of the county.

Furthermore, many of these high quality and actually quite affordable homes are rarely sited in any place that could possibly be described as a tourist area. Thus many of these perfectly sound homes are used for barely six months in a year and their value has plummeted because owners cannot rent them out, cannot sell them and cannot make them available for desperately needed housing in Norfolk. Instead the local authority, through PFI and other dubious finance agreements, has sponsored the building of 8,000 homes in many of which you can barely swing a cat, are not particularly cheap, and which are sited in areas that often can be described as the a*rse end of the towns and villages they are built in.

Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn, at least in the above cases, is that local authorities are, way beyond their legitimate powers, promoting a regime of elitism, social conditioning and social manipulation, all on the spurious reasoning of environmental protection.

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good rant and I find it hard to disagree with any of it.

Had this in mind yesterday when I spent the day cycling the Tissington and High Peaks Trail in Derbyshire. What struck me was how industrial that area would have been over 150 years ago to neccessitate the building of two railway lines. Indeed I know back in the 19th century an earlier generation of "Steeds" were employed at Master Brickmakers in the Hartington Lower Quarter.

Now you would not be allowed to build as much as shed, let alone any "industry" as such. Had we had the same insane planning controls back then any industrial growth would have been impossible. The railways lines which are tourist attractions now would never have been built!

I think the only short term solution is a motorhome and become a gypo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see you back VP.

How much of it can be put down to the need to centralise services such as schools and hospitals, because, at the height of our "wealth", we're now too poor to have the old village schools and cottage hospitals, and so the planners are forced to only allow mass building within certain areas?

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good rant and I find it hard to disagree with any of it.

Had this in mind yesterday when I spent the day cycling the Tissington and High Peaks Trail in Derbyshire. What struck me was how industrial that area would have been over 150 years ago to neccessitate the building of two railway lines. Indeed I know back in the 19th century an earlier generation of "Steeds" were employed at Master Brickmakers in the Hartington Lower Quarter.

Now you would not be allowed to build as much as shed, let alone any "industry" as such. Had we had the same insane planning controls back then any industrial growth would have been impossible. The railways lines which are tourist attractions now would never have been built!

I think the only short term solution is a motorhome and become a gypo!

Yup, I agree, but of course my point is that these planning restrictions as to use are slapped on buildings that already exist. Furthermore, if you examine your good point about industrial buildings, in a sense former agricultural buildings could also be legitimately seen as "industrial". But authorities are attempting social manipulation when they start telling people where they can live, and specifically that they cannot live in existing places which have already passed strict planning laws. It is not a local authority's place to be telling people that they cannot live somewhere that has already been passed as suitable for accomodation and it is nuts to designate a sorely needed dwelling as second-home only. What kind of madness is that in counties which already have a housing crisis?

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see you back VP.

How much of it can be put down to the need to centralise services such as schools and hospitals, because, at the height of our "wealth", we're now too poor to have the old village schools and cottage hospitals, and so the planners are forced to only allow mass building within certain areas?

Peter.

That's a good point, and I researched this. At first site it seems logical to herd people where infrastructure can apparently cope with them. But where this reasoning falls down is that there is already legislation/regulation which should compel planning departments not to make blanket decisions like this, but to allow for case by case situations. The opposite has happened. Planning depts are imposing restrictive convenents not through intelligent assessment of case specfics but as an exercise in attempting to be seen doing something that appears to be connected with "sustainability". So desperate are they to go through the motions and gain browny points that they are stabbing in the dark without discernment, thought or judgement.

Moreover, there is evidence that they actually do not possess powers of social manipulation in this way, and the only reason they get away with it is because it is time consuming and expensive to challenge them. The reason is simple: There is no right of appeal, even when the decision could have been made by one sole planning officer whose whim it was. The only avenue is by judicial review or its contemporary equivalent.

Here is a Times article from a few years back which very well explains the kind of stupid policies being applied to places like Cornwall, many of them self-contradictory, and all of them examples of decisions which exceed allowable powers:

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article5105796.ece

Edited by VacantPossession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good rant and I find it hard to disagree with any of it.

Had this in mind yesterday when I spent the day cycling the Tissington and High Peaks Trail in Derbyshire. What struck me was how industrial that area would have been over 150 years ago to neccessitate the building of two railway lines. Indeed I know back in the 19th century an earlier generation of "Steeds" were employed at Master Brickmakers in the Hartington Lower Quarter.

Now you would not be allowed to build as much as shed, let alone any "industry" as such. Had we had the same insane planning controls back then any industrial growth would have been impossible. The railways lines which are tourist attractions now would never have been built!

I think the only short term solution is a motorhome and become a gypo!

I'm surprised you can't see the irony in your post.

I mean, you wouldn't fancy a day out cycling in a smoke filled industrial estate would you?:rolleyes:

So, maybe the protection of some areas in our country is not insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the news Cameron is on holiday in Cornwall and indeed regularly holidays in Cornwall (well with the holiday time available to MPs it allows plenty of scope) likely perhaps he's got a 2nd home or so there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you can't see the irony in your post.

I mean, you wouldn't fancy a day out cycling in a smoke filled industrial estate would you?:rolleyes:

So, maybe the protection of some areas in our country is not insane.

Well almost, as I do industrial exploration (urbex) too. Some areas I guess, but the whole country is being turned into a museum. In the same way that bankers captured the regulatory system, own occupiers have kind of bought the planning process too. Well apart from London which is still allowed to constantly re-invent itself and where I guess the population accept that is the price one pays to live in one of the leading capital cities of the world. Fact is nothing we take for granted now, such as canals would never have been built with todays policies.Fact is Cornwall was a hive of industry (tin mining, as was Derbyshire) and the Norfolk Broads were created to extract peat and were entirely man made. Imagine such a project now, it would be outlawed for environmental reasons! Of course they are still happy to pump the country full of immigrants which don't add one jot to GDP, but will doubtless require support in some way.

Edited by John Steed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn, at least in the above cases, is that local authorities are, way beyond their legitimate powers, promoting a regime of elitism, social conditioning and social manipulation, all on the spurious reasoning of environmental protection.

Thanks for an interesting post, the bit in bold is the only one I disagree with.

What you describe originates from a UN initiative named Agenda 21. The local authorities are not only entitled to do this, they are pushed to at the global and national level. It's all documented down to how they should proceed to partner with private corporations in PPPs and are assisted by national or international (EU) level 'sustainability' or biodiversity laws.

This is much much bigger than your local authority bureaucrats, all they can do is take advantage of the process but they didn't come up with the idea.

The aim is to herd us all into 'sustainable' cities and depopulate the countryside. It's all out there, pretty much in the open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just had a week away in Hampshire , it is funny that this is the first thread I have read since returning. As while away driving through Kent , Surry , Hampshire, West Sussex and Dorset we travelled about a bit , all I saw everywhere I went was Green Green and more Green. Apart from Bournmouth that was a bit built up . There is space and land everywhere , we have enough room to build enough housing without having to put people in boxes and on top on each other without building over all the Green , but certain people with VI's do not want this to happen.

By the way the Green was ok and the villages pretty , but am I glad to be back home after a while I do find it all a bit boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Fact is nothing we take for granted now, such as canals would never have been built with todays policies.Fact is Cornwall was a hive of industry (tin mining, as was Derbyshire) and the Norfolk Broads were created to extract peat and were entirely man made. Imagine such a project now, it would be outlawed for environmental reasons...

Agreed.

I was watching a document on Britain's hidden heritage the other night. I couldn't help thinking that none of the properties featured would have ever been built under current legislation.

The only reason for the formation of the state in the first place was to protect the property rights of the landed gentry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for an interesting post, the bit in bold is the only one I disagree with.

What you describe originates from a UN initiative named Agenda 21. The local authorities are not only entitled to do this, they are pushed to at the global and national level. It's all documented down to how they should proceed to partner with private corporations in PPPs and are assisted by national or international (EU) level 'sustainability' or biodiversity laws.

This is much much bigger than your local authority bureaucrats, all they can do is take advantage of the process but they didn't come up with the idea.

The aim is to herd us all into 'sustainable' cities and depopulate the countryside. It's all out there, pretty much in the open.

Here's Fulham's Agenda 21 page in case you think I am a raving lunatic, every single local authoritiy has been given the agenda and told to follow it. One amazing thing is that UN bodies tell local authoritiess directly what to do, bypassing the government. How that is even possible I don't know.

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/external/la21/index.htm

Over the last 10 to 20 years, particularly in the West, there has been a growing awareness of our need to change the way we live, or face an increasingly poor outlook for our environment. Phrases like "eco-friendly", "climate change", "recycling" and "alternative energy" are now familiar to everyone.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The global problems affecting our planet can all seem overwhelming and can lead to a sense of powerlessness and apathy. However, there are many simple, ordinary things that we can all do locally to ensure a better quality community for the future, such as recycling more of our rubbish, reducing wastage, and minimising our contribution to pollution. We can also make choices about influencing global problems, too. For instance, we can buy Fair Trade produce to help ordinary people in the developing world, we can buy recycled products to help make recycling cost-effective, and we can lobby our councillors and MPs about these wider issues.

.... If all of us acted responsibly locally, global problems would be reduced, if not eliminated.

In other words, the kind of development that meets our present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same.

That'll include "initiatives" like shoving thousands of tons of useless marketing spam through everybody's letter boxes day in day out year in year out etc and wasting thousands upon thousands of barrels of oil on road "furniture" etc etc

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well almost, as I do industrial exploration (urbex) too. Some areas I guess, but the whole country is being turned into a museum. In the same way that bankers captured the regulatory system, own occupiers have kind of bought the planning process too. Well apart from London which is still allowed to constantly re-invent itself and where I guess the population accept that is the price one pays to live in one of the leading capital cities of the world. Fact is nothing we take for granted now, such as canals would never have been built with todays policies.Fact is Cornwall was a hive of industry (tin mining, as was Derbyshire) and the Norfolk Broads were created to extract peat and were entirely man made. Imagine such a project now, it would be outlawed for environmental reasons! Of course they are still happy to pump the country full of immigrants which don't add one jot to GDP, but will doubtless require support in some way.

Dutch immigrants were brought in to drain/pump the Fens and in other words "make straight the way of the Lord" with drains and straightened river channels. Bet the billions of gallons of fresh water could be easily diverted from a sea outfall to replenishing East Anglian water supplies.

But that doesn't suit the water companies who stick water prices up as soon as they create artificial shortages (by restricting supplies) whilst populations rise - blaming it on occasional dryer summer weather periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well almost, as I do industrial exploration (urbex) too.

You are kidding me, I'm on the 28 days later forums. Haven't posted in yonks though. Would have loved to have gone on the Longbridge urbex...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are kidding me, I'm on the 28 days later forums. Haven't posted in yonks though. Would have loved to have gone on the Longbridge urbex...

Might go on a Terry's of York urbex before it meets with a "convenient" fire. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for an interesting post, the bit in bold is the only one I disagree with.

What you describe originates from a UN initiative named Agenda 21. The local authorities are not only entitled to do this, they are pushed to at the global and national level. It's all documented down to how they should proceed to partner with private corporations in PPPs and are assisted by national or international (EU) level 'sustainability' or biodiversity laws.

This is much much bigger than your local authority bureaucrats, all they can do is take advantage of the process but they didn't come up with the idea.

The aim is to herd us all into 'sustainable' cities and depopulate the countryside. It's all out there, pretty much in the open.

But...fortunately the UN initiative you quote has competition from other legislation still in force which conflicts with it, amongst which are regulations governing not only enforceability, but where decisions such as these arenot fully supported by clear justifications on a case by case basis. In other words, it is not enough to apply general sustainability directives unless there is clear evidence that there is a perceivable benefit in the specific region. It is not enough to assume a benefit, or to guess that there is one. Moreover, any third party (ie: any citizen) can be accomodated in the decision making if they can make a case that the proposed restrictions would a) not be provable as a tangible public interest and B) that they are potential put at a disadvantage by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But...fortunately the UN initiative you quote has competition from other legislation still in force which conflicts with it...

In theory, but unfortunately not in practice.

This is both totally under the radar and completely in the open and I'm quite sure this approach breaks many laws in all countries affected (including AFAIK the US, UK, France, Belgium and probably a majority of countries in the world). But it is happening and this is what you are experiencing. I suspect quite a few laws were changed quietly at the national level to enable this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy a plot and put a caravan on it.

After you get a court order to move the caravan, move it to another plot.

If all your plots have orders on, sell them to another joker, and buy some different plots.

Put tents up on the plots. Take them down. Put them up.

Squat a holiday home.

The purpose of government is to allow the rich to buy public assets (at a discount) and to obtain more assets through compulsory purchase for improvement with taxpayers money. These are then sold on to the rich.

eg milennium dome. Olympics. Docklands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might go on a Terry's of York urbex before it meets with a "convenient" fire. :unsure:

Insurance job you mean? It's early :lol: Did you ever do one of the asylums? There's loads of reports on there, now THAT is an urbex...atmospheric! CLosest I got was busting into a lovely old delapidated house. It's gone now and been replaced with 4 new builds. :rolleyes:

52523204092.jpg

52523239092.jpg

52523264092.jpg

52523249092.jpg

52523249092.jpg

post-30275-0-31905700-1314165079_thumb.jpg

post-30275-0-90069200-1314165091_thumb.jpg

post-30275-0-73078900-1314165103_thumb.jpg

post-30275-0-23127400-1314165119_thumb.jpg

post-30275-0-71855700-1314165138_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 338 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.