"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:01:49 +0100, "mich" wrote:

If it doesn't now, then surely there will be the enticement for others
in the near future to move into the area and set up as doctors,
employers, and thus create the infrastructure. This sounds like a
Nimby argument to me.

They have just ( over the last couple of years) built 200 houses on the
lower slopes of a National Park down the road from me ( its also the
outskirts of a small town). The town shops are now closing down. People say
its connected because the newcomers travel 20 miles into the city rather
than shop locally.

You can no longer get an appointment at the local health centre because of
the sheer weight of numbers now registered. They attempted to appoint two
more doctors but another two left and they have not been able to find
replacements.

They kicked off a number of patients from further out - like where I live
and those now have a 10 mile trip to the next nearest doctor. The local
health centre was just four miles from my village centre. We have mostly
elederly people and no transport system.

There isnt a dentist for fifty miles and none will come in either.

The A&E at the local cottage hospital closed down and was relocated 14 miles
away so that it could be bigger to accommodate the influx of newcomers to
the new build houses.

The builder promised affordable homes ( they are not in any way eco) but
reduced this planning gain from 20 to just 6 on appeal). The new houses
have sold at 250K each. Locals cant raise that money so they are still
looking for homes. All building new houses has done is put a strain on the
resources by increasing numbers in the area. The demand was not "local" ,
nearly all the houses have been sold to people coming from other parts of
the country.

That in turn has put pressure on the local economy as there are few jobs
anyway and now there are more people chasing them. People are thinking
nothing of travelling 70/80 miles daily in various directions ( each way) in
order to find work - that is those who can afford the transport as there is
no public transport. Thats more pressure on the environment with cars of
course. There isnt one single centre of employment , and the centres that do
exist are small, none of the public transport routes would be viable.
Further since its nearly a three hour drive ( we are talking Cornish lanes
here not four lane motorways) each way to get to a job, if you can get one!

There needs to be a balance somewhere between the environment and this so
called need for houses.
One of the neighbouring LA 's has put some controls as an experiment (in
part of its area) on the sale of houses recently in an attempt to cut down
the migration and give locals a chance at getting homes. Its seems to be
working. House prices/ jobs/ care facilities etc in that authority seem to
be coming under some control . Of course you have to prove you have links
there qualify to live and register there.

Maybe its nimbyism but maybe some of us need a bit more nimbyism and a bit
of jftl ( just for the locals)

An eco house as being proposed on this board would not be anywhere within
the reach of locals and I cant see that the bloke trying to build it is
doing it for any altruistic reasons. Its a money making venture - to sell
to the silly Londoners I suppose? Over inflated prices and lots of
nimbyism.

In fact i have to say, since we got "invaded" in my village , there has been
less buildingg and far more nimbyism g
So maybe thats a good thing. But they also like to buy a house with an half
an acre or so garden and then try to build in it. Sell up and scaper to
another one with a large garden ( like my new neighbour - hence I got the
field before he got it!) and they move further out and once they get
planning permission , as you have rightly said, they erode the building
line.

So yes, Nimbyism reigns OK. I make no apologies for that.
They want to make money , let them do it in their own back yards, not mine.


Planning rules are there for a reason.

Yes, to put the spanner in the works of anyone who wants to add to the
housing stock, mainly out of spite.

Good. I am glad spite still exists in the world and that some people still
know how to use a spanner.



Why is it a "trick" to discover what kind of house would be preferable
and then trying to appeal to some residual trace of planners' better
nature? Of course, I believe the kind of "trick" they understand is
the one where you offer to build them a new scout hut for free, or
something like that. What the planners mean when they say "no" is not
"We don't like the effect on the environment," but "We don't like you
yuppy types down from Town who can afford to live here when we can't."

I certainly hope so.



But he will have left behind him TWO houses where once there was only
ONE! In other words, he has contributed to the housing stock and made
it just a tad easier (though infinitesimal, given the lack of new
houses being built) for others to get on to the housing ladder. Every
additional house does this in its own small way. This is why even the
Govt concedes that we should be building more houses.

No they dont - see above, What is done is it makes it a tad easier for
someone to migrate and pay silly prices and push people out, whilst at the
same time putting increased pressure on the local economy and the local
resources and the local services.

And it certainly isnt eco friendly.



If you're so concerned
for wildlife, ask farmers up and down the land why they have ripped
out so many thousands of miles of hedging that once offered shelter to
so much wildlife.

Not where I live they havent.