"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
What do you think my chances are?

Two chances really: slim and none.

I certainly hope you are correct on that!

Why? What is wrong with demolishing ugly farm buildings and building a
state-of-the-art eco house? The whole country should be spattered with
eco
house.

It makes for the slums of the future
for those who are unfortunate enough
to live by them quite often.

On what do you base this ridiculous assertion?

Its happened round my area in several places.

How many eco houses around you then?

When it was only one in a
"back garden" it want noticable, ( well it was
actually , but no one said
anything) but then the precident was set and
several others started doing
it and suddenly it was slum land.

Eco houses in all your back gardens?

More than that the liberty takers arrived
and started buying houses with
large gardens and then building two
or three on the sites ( one was little
more than a lay by!). These were not
sold as affordable homes, so the locals
were still homeless and priced out of
the market. And yes, I have seen the
eco builders even bigger pounds in
pockets when they sell - and no one in
the locality benefits , and in a few years
all the "eco" has been planned
out and changed with "alterations" to the house.

What you have is a big chip. You want affordable housing in your area.
Stopping people from building houses will not achieve that. In fact the
reverse will happen.

I think planning committes need to be
more careful and vigilent on this - I
hope they are being.

The OP has a 2 acre plot. hardly cramming in the back gardens. The solution
is allow people to build on the unused subsidised fields. We have a land
surplus. You are looking at the matter from the wrong direction. Stopping
people from building on subsidised fields, from our taxes, will prevent over
development in existing built up areas?