BTW, it was the subtitle of this thread that first attracted my attention. Garden threatened by snowdrops?? Was this a new, militant strain of snowdrops? I asked myself.
Hi Gardening Grandma - if nothing else, at least it's getting people to talk about it and discuss whether or not certain planning laws ought perhaps to be changed. However, you'll have seen that my point of view is that if there's a law, we should abide by it - and then do what we can to persuade The Powers That Be to see things differently if that appears to be the majority view.
I quite agree. Publicity is a good persuasion technique! It does look as though the local councillors will place limits on what can be done to her, anyway. The clerks concerned were probably just following the guidelines they have been given. That's the trouble with a large, bureaucratic organisation like a council - there's often no-one ultimately supervising what happens.
Much as it maligns me, as I do love a nice garden especially with a nice pond, (one in the planning stages already!) I have to go with the law on this one, but not just on people who make nice gardens on greenbelt, but on everyone who nicks greenbelt. As I said, and I believe the geoff-monster (dressing-gown aside, or should I say open) agrees with, if you let somebody have this, then it sets precedent for everyone else, before you know it there's no greenbelt left. It's a tough case, but if they take this lovely garden to task, they should also take all the unscrupulous, ie the dodgey chicken farmers, gypsies that just set up, etc. The land is greenbelt for a reason, yes it's a nice garden, but when the house is sold, someone else might build an extension or brick buildings on it, then it isn't a lovely garden, it's brick development on greenbelt land. That's the bit most aren't seeing, deeds last forever, so this property could be 100 or 200 years down the road with stuff then being built on it with no impunity.
I take your point. It is still designated as green belt, though, so presumably the restriction on building will still be in force. Building is a lot more serious than a pond so maybe we just need to keep a sense of proportion.
Yes GG, the problem is, you develop a piece of land, even just a nice ornamental garden, then you are in a grey area, and the authorities don't like grey areas, because it allows the scummier side of society to take liberties. Unfortunately that is the way society is, but I'd prefer there is zero tolerance and my kids and grandkids and great grandkids can still enjoy the UK and it's wildlife, than allow precedent on greenbelt land. Yes it's a lovely garden, yes it's really harsh, but that is the regulations, the minute you make exceptions is when you basically shouldn't have made the law in the first place.
BTW, it was the subtitle of this thread that first attracted my attention. Garden threatened by snowdrops?? Was this a new, militant strain of snowdrops? I asked myself.
I take your point. It is still designated as green belt, though, so presumably the restriction on building will still be in force. Building is a lot more serious than a pond so maybe we just need to keep a sense of proportion.
My thoughts exactly. Building permission would probably never be granted. Saying that, I have a feeling that permission is granted on greenbelt land if it suits. What about this new fast railway proposed or a I talking a load of rubbish. Feel free to shoot me down if I have got the wrong end of the stick. I can take it!
yes TT, it's all about where the money flows really, and who you know. Politicians always look after each other, you telling me that this high speed line, which will actually take longer than the main service once you factor in getting across town, hasn't had many palms greased? This whole idea of a high speed train is flawed, you get to birmingham then take 40 mins to get to the next station.. which is 3 miles away but across the city. Some serious cash has gone into pockets on this, hence why it's being forced through. Another white elephant.
Interesting, BB. I live in an area where there is a lot of empty space and I have to acknowledge that green belt is extremely valuable as an amenity, especially where there is a lot of intensive building, as in the south east.
I'm not so much arguing that Jean B should be an exception as that a pond and mown grass is not much of an infringement and an apropriate response should be given. She still owns the land if it reverts to its rough state and it is still enclosed and inaccessible as a leisure amenity for others.
Only 10% of Britain is built upon, although much green land is within sight and sound of development. We want green belt - and we want development, because it creates housing and wealth. There's an outcry every time a road is built through it, with people chaining themselves to trees, etc, but the alternative is congestion and traffic thundering past people's houses day and night.
I do think that zero tolerance sounds good and worthy, but actually it is dangerous. It leads to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if you see what I mean. Mistakes are treated the same as crimes. It is completely insensitive to people's real needs and lives. Most people stop believing in it when it affects their own home and family.
For example, in the US in some states, murder carries a mandatory life sentence as part of a zero tolerance policy. Cold-blooded, planned murder is therefore punished the same as a crime of passion under intense stress, as when one young man shot his girlfriend's violent ex-husband when he thought she was going to be attacked. He is a soldier with a record of gallantry, and he is a devout Christian. Things are just not black and white.
So I'll have to disagree with you, even while I respect and sympathise with what you are saying.
P.S. I enjoy debate, but I hope I am not being a total pain in the neck for keeping up the argument.
Posts
BTW, it was the subtitle of this thread that first attracted my attention. Garden threatened by snowdrops?? Was this a new, militant strain of snowdrops? I asked myself.
Hi Gardening Grandma - if nothing else, at least it's getting people to talk about it and discuss whether or not certain planning laws ought perhaps to be changed. However, you'll have seen that my point of view is that if there's a law, we should abide by it - and then do what we can to persuade The Powers That Be to see things differently if that appears to be the majority view.
I quite agree. Publicity is a good persuasion technique! It does look as though the local councillors will place limits on what can be done to her, anyway. The clerks concerned were probably just following the guidelines they have been given. That's the trouble with a large, bureaucratic organisation like a council - there's often no-one ultimately supervising what happens.
Much as it maligns me, as I do love a nice garden especially with a nice pond, (one in the planning stages already!) I have to go with the law on this one, but not just on people who make nice gardens on greenbelt, but on everyone who nicks greenbelt. As I said, and I believe the geoff-monster (dressing-gown aside, or should I say open) agrees with, if you let somebody have this, then it sets precedent for everyone else, before you know it there's no greenbelt left. It's a tough case, but if they take this lovely garden to task, they should also take all the unscrupulous, ie the dodgey chicken farmers, gypsies that just set up, etc. The land is greenbelt for a reason, yes it's a nice garden, but when the house is sold, someone else might build an extension or brick buildings on it, then it isn't a lovely garden, it's brick development on greenbelt land. That's the bit most aren't seeing, deeds last forever, so this property could be 100 or 200 years down the road with stuff then being built on it with no impunity.
I take your point. It is still designated as green belt, though, so presumably the restriction on building will still be in force. Building is a lot more serious than a pond so maybe we just need to keep a sense of proportion.
Yes GG, the problem is, you develop a piece of land, even just a nice ornamental garden, then you are in a grey area, and the authorities don't like grey areas, because it allows the scummier side of society to take liberties. Unfortunately that is the way society is, but I'd prefer there is zero tolerance and my kids and grandkids and great grandkids can still enjoy the UK and it's wildlife, than allow precedent on greenbelt land. Yes it's a lovely garden, yes it's really harsh, but that is the regulations, the minute you make exceptions is when you basically shouldn't have made the law in the first place.
My thoughts exactly. Building permission would probably never be granted. Saying that, I have a feeling that permission is granted on greenbelt land if it suits. What about this new fast railway proposed or a I talking a load of rubbish. Feel free to shoot me down if I have got the wrong end of the stick. I can take it!
yes TT, it's all about where the money flows really, and who you know. Politicians always look after each other, you telling me that this high speed line, which will actually take longer than the main service once you factor in getting across town, hasn't had many palms greased? This whole idea of a high speed train is flawed, you get to birmingham then take 40 mins to get to the next station.. which is 3 miles away but across the city. Some serious cash has gone into pockets on this, hence why it's being forced through. Another white elephant.
Interesting, BB. I live in an area where there is a lot of empty space and I have to acknowledge that green belt is extremely valuable as an amenity, especially where there is a lot of intensive building, as in the south east.
I'm not so much arguing that Jean B should be an exception as that a pond and mown grass is not much of an infringement and an apropriate response should be given. She still owns the land if it reverts to its rough state and it is still enclosed and inaccessible as a leisure amenity for others.
Only 10% of Britain is built upon, although much green land is within sight and sound of development. We want green belt - and we want development, because it creates housing and wealth. There's an outcry every time a road is built through it, with people chaining themselves to trees, etc, but the alternative is congestion and traffic thundering past people's houses day and night.
I do think that zero tolerance sounds good and worthy, but actually it is dangerous. It leads to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if you see what I mean. Mistakes are treated the same as crimes. It is completely insensitive to people's real needs and lives. Most people stop believing in it when it affects their own home and family.
For example, in the US in some states, murder carries a mandatory life sentence as part of a zero tolerance policy. Cold-blooded, planned murder is therefore punished the same as a crime of passion under intense stress, as when one young man shot his girlfriend's violent ex-husband when he thought she was going to be attacked. He is a soldier with a record of gallantry, and he is a devout Christian. Things are just not black and white.
So I'll have to disagree with you, even while I respect and sympathise with what you are saying.
P.S. I enjoy debate, but I hope I am not being a total pain in the neck for keeping up the argument.
GG not a pain in the neck at all - well not to me anyway.