Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Insane NIMBY of the week

Tory pledge of farmland protection and a review of the bureaucracy

Yup. Tory agriculture spokesman seriously wants to double the size of The Hallowed Greenbelt. Don't forget that The Hallowed Greenbelt and developed areas each cover about 11% of the UK by surface area. Why not just announce that under a Tory government there will be a blanket ban on the construction of anything whatsoever? That would be honest at least.

Posted by mark wadsworth @ 01:43 PM (1463 views)
Please complete the required fields.



15 thoughts on “Insane NIMBY of the week

  • Right on song with the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England’s “Election Manifesto” which aims to ‘promote urban renewal, with higher development targets for Brownfield land’. The CPRE also claim that ‘the reality is that urbanism continues to envelope the rural areas’ when to truth is that the built environment is lost in the green fields of England.

    We see only the NIMBY fights against new build developments squashed on the edge of towns because the Town and Country planning Act of 1947 won’t let us build more small developments on agricultural land where it will hardly be noticed.

    The UK’s artificial land shortage only benefits the Aristocratic landlords who gain from the over inflated land prices.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • the number cruncher says:

    I highly suspect the Torys will be worse than labour as their natural voters are the Old, buy to let landlords and those with massive mortgages and vested interests in the property asset market.

    A lot of my time is spent with wildlife and rural issues and the idea that green belt protects wildlife is rubbish. Most greenbelt is just wildlife desert – intensively farmed land. Many people’s back gardens support more wildlife. Well thought out housing development could increase the beauty and wildlife gain of the land, if done like they have been in Holland and Germany.

    As MW tells us Green belt is just a big con to keep house prices high and plebs out of the countryside.

    Dave is an old Tory with no real interest in the free market (unlike Mrs T) his policies will be about protecting the wealth base of the well off, while offering paternalist crumbs to the lower orders.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Starting to think that stocking up on popcorn and voting Labour is the way to go here.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • charlie brooker says:

    Any mention of Land Value Tax?

    Of course not.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • numbercruncher

    Although countryside that is not intensively farmed would be better than back gardens, which are in any case are not really wildlife habitats in new treeless builds, would you not agree?

    As for the Tories and land, their intention to up the Inheritance Tax threshold shows where there priorities lie.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • This is just the ongoing assault of Agenda 21 that seeks to keep humans from rural areas. You see now businesses and farms blocked from growth and houses blocked from having extensions in the “National” Parks. This combines with the talks about high speed rail. The vision of Agenda 21 is to cram us all into mega cities linked by huge motorways and fast trains. We saw a trial run with the Foot and Mouth Scam where a false flag attack on agriculture was used as a trial run to keep people from the countryside.

    You don’t believe it? Well go read the stinking documents then. Go read up about biodiversity and Agenda21. This is where humanity is delegated because, unlike animal species, the UN considers there are too many humans, they want us reduced to 21 million. All of this is outlined in the film, Endgame:

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • freemanphil – you haven’t read agenda 21, have you? You’ve in fact only read what others with the same political views as you have said about it. Try reading it and see if it ties in with what your websites and videos are saying.

    Here it is – http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

    Where’s the section on megacities?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • freemanphil

    Have you ever considered going into politics? Play the game and you might find yourself in a position of influence. At that point, you can provide all the good people with the recipe of human happiness that, undoubtedly, underlies your current fractiousness with the ‘global’ agenda.

    What do you want, fmp? Pouring out here, off topic, will probably not achieve it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Infrastructure is not up to 63million people. Existing housing stock isn’t thermally efficient enough for the energy starved very near future, we import an (unnecessarily) huge proportion of our food.
    Ransacking the countryside to build houses is not the solution though it has it’s attractions in the short term I suppose.
    The long term answer has to be to reduce demand not ever increasing supply, demand for houses, oil, food, almost everything.
    Restricting immigration and allowing our population to shrink for a couple of generations will do this.
    A reducing population would be the last thing the greedy gits out there want who know exactly how to make money out of a shortage.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • FMP 8 – “Farms blocked from growth”? I thought this had to do with keeping the best farmland for farming. Not sure why Mark W is against this either. As it stands the proposal seems innocuous – it covers 20% of farmland, leaving 80% still ‘in play’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @icarus: As it stands the proposal seems innocuous – it covers 20% of farmland, leaving 80% still ‘in play’.

    The issue isn’t really about protecting farmland for farming, that clearly is a good thing…. the problem is the completely unreasonable block on developments on agricultural land and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England’s aims of increasing urban density. There is enough room for us to use a little bit of the agricultural land and lose the remainder of our housing requirement in the green fields of England. But you have to realise that this doesn’t happen in order to maintain the artificial land shortage and the subsequent over priced land values.

    It’s a scam.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Icarus: “I thought this had to do with keeping the best farmland for farming.”

    Well know, that’s what they want you to think, but it isn’t.

    It’s up to farmers to decide which bits of land to sell off for housing, and unless they are completely thick, they’ll sell off the bits that aren’t so good for farming but perfectly acceptable for housing (i.e. the hilly bits).

    As to the maths, bearing in mind eleven per cent of this country is already Hallowed Greenbelt (and the rest is too far from towns or cities to be a sensible place to live, unless you enjoy a one-hour commute) what the Tories want is to DOUBLE THE SIZE of the greenbelt, so if you want to live out of town you’re looking at a one-and-a-half-hour commute.

    And 80% is not “in play”, even now (when seven-eighths of farmland is technically not Greenbelt), absolutely naff all is “in play” every new development is passionately opposed by the Home-Owner-Ists whenever, wherever, whoever, whatever.

    So at least the Tories could be honest about it and say “We will ban all new construction of anything whatsoever anywhere.” Bizarrely enough, that policy would get them a huge amount of votes, but that’s democracy for you.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • power & MW @13 & 14. Thanks for that. My comment was a bit devil’s advocatty hoping to elicit such clarifications. I’m still not completely clear, though. You seem to be saying that what they call ‘the best agricultural land’ (defined by whom, for what purpose I don’t know) is generally close to urban areas and not in the out-of-the-way places where few want to live (if it’s out-of-the way there’s no issue – let them have it for farming). Also, by ‘in play’ I meant ‘unaffected by this particular proposal’ – I didn’t mean that it therefore had potential development status.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Icarus, when they say “the best agricultural land” what they mean is “all land in the South East”.

    AFAIAC, they could declare a building moratorium on 95% of farmland and allow a free-for-all on the rest – that would allow our built up and urban areas to increase in size by about a third, which would see us through nicely for the next century or two. And after that, it’s somebody else’s decision.

    And if the Tories, in a fit of Home-Owner-ist non-logic, want to forbid development below the line between Bristol and The Wash, then so be it, that will, in relative terms, be good for the Northern half of the country and bad for the South.

    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>