"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

You are right we should be living amongst wildlife.

But most people dont want to live with wildlife
( despite Bill Oddie and the Beebs attempts
to convince them otherwise) .

They do. They are not allowed to.

No matter what the density of
housing, they will try to eradicate
the wildlife around them.

Who are these "they"?

They will either seek to prevent or evict
the bats from their roof spaces. They will
eveict the mice from the Englsih natural
hedgerows by grubbing them out and
planting the scourge of suberbia - leyllandii .

What ball.

snip Nimby ignorant tripe

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:


It is not greed. The country is short of millions of homes.

Been at the port again?

snip tripe by an idiot

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

You are right we should be living amongst wildlife.

But most people dont want to live with wildlife
( despite Bill Oddie and the Beebs attempts
to convince them otherwise) .

They do. They are not allowed to.

No matter what the density of
housing, they will try to eradicate
the wildlife around them.

Who are these "they"?

Most of the people on this DIY newsgroup for a start - one of the most
often asked questions is " how do I kill the mice that have come into my
house.... or a variation on that theme.

I could do with some more ideas of eco friendly ideas. The ones I've got
so far a

- Super insulated - insulation from recycled materials
- wood frame - ?
- passive solar wall space heating
- solar domestic hot water
- wood burners with onsite ash coppice
- low energy lighting throughout

Probably not of much relevance unless you can get the principal of
development agreed. Take a look at the local plan on the Mid Suffolk DC
website at

http://www.mid-suffolk-dc.gov.uk

I wish my local authority would do a similar thing on their site!

"mich" wrote
| Most of the people on this DIY newsgroup for a start - one of
| the most often asked questions is " how do I kill the mice that
| have come into my house.... or a variation on that theme.

rats, wasps, cats or other people's children seem to be the favourites

Owain

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

You are right we should be living amongst wildlife.

But most people dont want to live with wildlife
( despite Bill Oddie and the Beebs attempts
to convince them otherwise) .

They do. They are not allowed to.

No matter what the density of
housing, they will try to eradicate
the wildlife around them.

Who are these "they"?

Most of the people on this DIY
newsgroup for a start - one of the most
often asked questions is " how do I kill
the mice that have come into my
house.... or a variation on that theme.

To have nature around you, you don't need to have vermin in the house. You
are strange.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

You are right we should be living amongst wildlife.

But most people dont want to live with wildlife
( despite Bill Oddie and the Beebs attempts
to convince them otherwise) .

They do. They are not allowed to.

No matter what the density of
housing, they will try to eradicate
the wildlife around them.

Who are these "they"?

Most of the people on this DIY
newsgroup for a start - one of the most
often asked questions is " how do I kill
the mice that have come into my
house.... or a variation on that theme.

To have nature around you, you don't need to have vermin in the house.
You
are strange.

I do not have vermin in my house but they do exist in my garden , most
suberbanites will tolerate neither.

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

You are right we should be living amongst wildlife.

But most people dont want to live with wildlife
( despite Bill Oddie and the Beebs attempts
to convince them otherwise) .

They do. They are not allowed to.

No matter what the density of
housing, they will try to eradicate
the wildlife around them.

Who are these "they"?

Most of the people on this DIY
newsgroup for a start - one of the most
often asked questions is " how do I kill
the mice that have come into my
house.... or a variation on that theme.

To have nature around you, you don't need to have vermin in the house.
You
are strange.

I do not have vermin in my house but they do exist in my garden , most
suberbanites will tolerate neither.

Tripe! Most people like hedgehogs, frogs and the likes in their gardens.

"IMM" wrote in message
...
snip tripe by an idiot
I have to agree

IMM wrote:



To have nature around you, you don't need to have vermin in the house. You
are strange.



Let's face it IMM has to live with himself, and whilst I am a natural
philosopher, he is a just a 'natural' as we used to call 'em.

So he is all the vermin he needs.

On 4 Jun 2004 02:14:31 -0700, (NickW) wrote:

I have a 2 acre plot in rural Suffolk. We do not live within the
village development boundary. The planning office has already
informally said they would not recommend permission for a new house.

However, I might still give it a bash... but I need an angle.

Here are some plus points:

* Part of my back garden is already fenced off and has been for years
- it looks like another plot.

* It has seperate access via a track which is well established.
Although the track crosses the village green, vehicles *are* permitted
along it because it's also used by another cottage.

* There are two unsightly delapidated barns (steel/asbestos) which the
house would replace

* If the house was a bungalow, it would probably not be visible from
the road.

* I have plans for an eco friendly house using solar water heating,
passive solar space heating with thermal storage, wood burning stoves,
eco friendly building materials and maybe some photovoltaic panels
etc.

* There is plenty of room for more than just one extra house, I could
offer a plot to put a couple of low-cost houses on, sold to the
council at cost.

What do you think my chances are?

My first thoughts are that in my opinion most local councillors and
planning officials who get to make a decision on what is built are a
bunch of old fogies driven by nimbyism, oneupmanship and sour grapes.
If they set their minds against you, for any reason, hell will freeze
over until these petty jobsworths with the power of Fidel Castro to
change their minds, or have it changed for them by higher powers.

I would never bother myself. I have heard of several examples where
there were perfectly good proposals to even just replace an existing
property, let alone build a new one next door, and the
council/planning authorities have just said, no, you may not. One
would have better luck getting on Schindler's List.

The way things are planned in this country is archaic. It is one of
the reasons why so few properties are being built and why there is no
cheap housing any more for the lower paid to get on to the housing
ladder.

However, you might consider selling the land instead to one of the
larger builders, who would probably know which strings to pull and
palms to grease, as that what it comes down to with our marvellous
system from the middle ages.

MM

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:25:22 +0100, John Smith wrote:

explain to me how wood burning stoves are eco-friendly?

Duh, they are not burning a finite resource like oil or gas! Hint: You
can grow more wood...

MM

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:48:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Best of luck. I hope you get it and you build the house. We need more people
like you around.

I hope he's got plenty of money, as the kind of spec you just came up
with will cost a fortune! Probably half a million to build, I reckon.

MM

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:37:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"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.

I agree. I just don't think they need to quite so high-spec as your
ideal type to be valuable to the environment as well as being nice to
live in.

MM

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 15:33:26 +0100, "mich" wrote:

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

Have no fear! The jobsworths are always vigilant when it comes to
preventing entrepreneurs who want to make or build something! Because
they couldn't, no one else is allowed. I call it the Verboten
mentality.

In any case, why must the locality benefit? What business is it of
"the locality" that someone has the nous to move there and pay someone
money to buy their property or utilise a plot of waste ground that
will otherwise contribute nothing to the environment, given that it
has only a couple of ramshackle eyesores of barns on it? It's like we
must all do "the locality" a favour for having the good grace to allow
us to live in their community. Maybe would-be builders should adopt
the approach of certain Muslim pilgrims and crawl the last few hundred
yards to the council offices on their stomachs, just to make everyone
aware of how committed they are to "the locality".

MM

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:01:49 +0100, "mich" wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

The OP has a 2 acre plot.

And it will sonn be a half acre plot with what - four more houses on the
other one and a half acres?

Why? And in any case, what is wrong with building four houses on two
acres? That's a fair bit of land per house, is it not?

Will that be in keeping with the area?
Does the area have the infrastructure ( health services, roads, employment,
etc.) to support it? I doubt it.

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.

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.

if his two acres are currently
outside the loacal plan devolpment area , its no doubt for a good reason
and it should remain so. Trying "tricks" - like eco building etc. to have
that changed is underhand

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."

and does no one good in the log

Good typo! Maybe it's a log cabin the putative builder should be
proposing!

run ( except the
developer maybe, who no doubt will sell up and run - no doubt a long way
from the mess he creates).

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.

But he isnt in my back yard , so I dont really care.
I have just stated my observations in my own area.

Ive just bought another field ( 5 acres) in an attempt to keep any of that
happening near me in my lifetime at least.
But I guess I am a greedy b*stard of another kind. I like to see wildlife
and plants and trees.

I see wildlife and trees everywhere and I live within 40 miles of
Oxford Street. I have a hedgehog in my garden. 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.

MM

"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.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:48:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Best of luck. I hope you get it and you build the house. We need more
people
like you around.

I hope he's got plenty of money, as
the kind of spec you just came up
with will cost a fortune! Probably half
a million to build, I reckon.

You reckon? On what do you base this groundless assertion? Zero heating
houses cost no more to build than any other. It is primarily design and
selecting the correct materials.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:



To have nature around you, you don't need to have vermin in the house.
You
are strange.

snip tripe by a snot

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


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

The OP has a 2 acre plot.

And it will sonn be a half acre plot with what - four more houses on the
other one and a half acres?

Why? And in any case, what is wrong with building four houses on two
acres? That's a fair bit of land per house, is it not?

Will that be in keeping with the area?
Does the area have the infrastructure ( health services, roads,
employment,
etc.) to support it? I doubt it.

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.

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.

if his two acres are currently
outside the loacal plan devolpment area , its no doubt for a good
reason
and it should remain so. Trying "tricks" - like eco building etc. to
have
that changed is underhand

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."

and does no one good in the log

Good typo! Maybe it's a log cabin the putative builder should be
proposing!

run ( except the
developer maybe, who no doubt will sell up and run - no doubt a long way
from the mess he creates).

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.

But he isnt in my back yard , so I dont really care.
I have just stated my observations in my own area.

Ive just bought another field ( 5 acres) in an attempt to keep any of
that
happening near me in my lifetime at least.
But I guess I am a greedy b*stard of another kind. I like to see wildlife
and plants and trees.

I see wildlife and trees everywhere and I live within 40 miles of
Oxford Street. I have a hedgehog in my garden. 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.

good post.

"mich" wrote in message
...

"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.

Which is bolock!! Any citizen of the UK has the right to live "anywhere" in
the UK. This is shear discrimination. If they looked at the root cause you
would find that there is a shortage of homes. Why? because you have endless
subsidised fields that they will not allow anyone to build on. It is that
simple. Allow people to build and the problems sorts itself out. The
infrastructure and services should follow, if they don't, kick up about it.

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

What you need is the planning system revamped to allow land to be built on,
to accommodate the needs of the people, not large landowners.

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

He will add to the housing stock that is clear. And houses with ultra low
impact too. All to be commended.

- to sell
to the silly Londoners I suppose? Over
inflated prices and lots of nimbyism.

Bumpkin prejudice and ignorance. Jealous because you are skint?

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.

It is bad thing. There should be more building to accommodate the demand.
Let private enterprise do it and the gap will be filed in no time at all.
First give them the land to do it.

But they also like to buy a house with an half
an acre or so garden and then try to build in it.

1/4 acre per house is a good sized plot.

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.

They also pour money into your poor economy too. Give them the land and
they will improve matters for all.

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.

Do you vote Communist too?

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.

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.

You are mad. A house has been added to the much needed housing stock.

And it certainly isnt eco friendly.

An eco house is well, er, er, a eco house.

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.

It appears you can't see further than your small village.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:37:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"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.

I agree. I just don't think they need to quite so high-spec as your
ideal type to be valuable to the environment as well as being nice to
live in.

The spec was not high. It was a superinsulated house (a normal house with
high insulation levels) and a solar roof, and a large water store. Not
rocket science.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:57:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



What you need is the planning system revamped to allow land to be built on,
to accommodate the needs of the people, not large landowners.



Don't muck about with news groups. Why don't you go for direct
action?

It seems that limitations on development exist elsewhere as well...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3778875.stm



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

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


Bumpkin prejudice and ignorance. Jealous because you are skint?

I am neither wealthy nor skint. You assume too much.

You are a member of the boo / hoorah clan - boo what you dont agree with,
hurraah that you do. You have yet to actually adress any issue raised and as
such I suspect you are prejudiced and ignorant and see no point in
continuing to try and place the facts as they occur before you.


It appears you can't see further than your small village.

Agatha Christies Miss marple was accused of the same thing but she had a
razor sharp mind and always solved the murder. So thats no mean acheievement
either. The village is a microcosm of the global one.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:24:26 +0100, "mich" wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

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


Bumpkin prejudice and ignorance. Jealous because you are skint?

I am neither wealthy nor skint. You assume too much.

You are a member of the boo / hoorah clan - boo what you dont agree with,
hurraah that you do. You have yet to actually adress any issue raised and as
such I suspect you are prejudiced and ignorant and see no point in
continuing to try and place the facts as they occur before you.


It appears you can't see further than your small village.

Agatha Christies Miss marple was accused of the same thing but she had a
razor sharp mind and always solved the murder. So thats no mean acheievement
either. The village is a microcosm of the global one.



It is indeed.

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:57:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



What you need is the planning system revamped to allow land to be built
on,
to accommodate the needs of the people, not large landowners.

Don't muck about with news groups. Why don't you go for direct
action?

It seems that limitations on development exist elsewhere as well...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3778875.stm

Commercxial premises.

"mich" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

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


Bumpkin prejudice and ignorance. Jealous because you are skint?

I am neither wealthy nor skint. You assume too much.

You are a member of the boo / hoorah clan - boo what you dont agree with,
hurraah that you do.

Most people do that.

You have yet to actually adress any issue raised

You obviously can't read.

and as such I suspect you are prejudiced
and ignorant and see no point in
continuing to try and place the facts as they
occur before you.

What facts are you on about?

You do not have the ability to perform simple root cause analysis. You are
negative, wanting to stop people form being constructive in an area we are
desperately short. In short an idiot.

It appears you can't see further than your small village.

Agatha Christies Miss marple was accused of the same thing but she had a
razor sharp mind and always solved the murder.

This was a made up eprson. Duh!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:24:26 +0100, "mich" wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

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


Bumpkin prejudice and ignorance. Jealous because you are skint?

I am neither wealthy nor skint. You assume too much.

You are a member of the boo / hoorah clan - boo what you dont agree with,
hurraah that you do. You have yet to actually adress any issue raised and
as
such I suspect you are prejudiced and ignorant and see no point in
continuing to try and place the facts as they occur before you.

It appears you can't see further than your small village.

Agatha Christies Miss marple was accused of the same thing but she had a
razor sharp mind and always solved the murder. So thats no mean
acheievement
either. The village is a microcosm of the global one.

It is indeed.

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.

What has this tripe to do with the topic?

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:40:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:57:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



What you need is the planning system revamped to allow land to be built
on,
to accommodate the needs of the people, not large landowners.

Don't muck about with news groups. Why don't you go for direct
action?

It seems that limitations on development exist elsewhere as well...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3778875.stm

Commercxial premises.

Read the article. He also went for homes of city board members
responsible for zoning

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/0...age/index.html

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:46:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



It appears you can't see further than your small village.

Agatha Christies Miss marple was accused of the same thing but she had a
razor sharp mind and always solved the murder. So thats no mean
acheievement
either. The village is a microcosm of the global one.

It is indeed.

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.

What has this tripe to do with the topic?

I rather thought that it would go over your head. The point being
made is that the structure and essence of the village is the template
for the larger issues.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote

This was a made up eprson. Duh!

Like you, you mean?

In article , Mike Mitchell
writes
My first thoughts are that in my opinion most local councillors and
planning officials who get to make a decision on what is built are a
bunch of old fogies driven by nimbyism, oneupmanship and sour grapes.
If they set their minds against you, for any reason, hell will freeze
over until these petty jobsworths with the power of Fidel Castro to
change their minds, or have it changed for them by higher powers.

I would never bother myself. I have heard of several examples where
there were perfectly good proposals to even just replace an existing
property, let alone build a new one next door, and the
council/planning authorities have just said, no, you may not. One
would have better luck getting on Schindler's List.

The way things are planned in this country is archaic. It is one of
the reasons why so few properties are being built and why there is no
cheap housing any more for the lower paid to get on to the housing
ladder.

However, you might consider selling the land instead to one of the
larger builders, who would probably know which strings to pull and
palms to grease, as that what it comes down to with our marvellous
system from the middle ages.

If this is speaking from personal experience it sound like you have gone
at this like a bull in a china shop, planning procedures can be
manipulated by anyone you just have to understand them. It also sounds
like you're a bit out of touch, most planning applications go through
despite the wishes of the local community especially that we now have
ppg3. If what you're referring to is development outside of permitted
boundaries then that is more than a LPO will have sole responsibility
over anyway, whilst on the matter its worth also mentioning the large
land banks that developers have, its the developers that decide as and
when these are built on and developers are only interested in one thing,
and its not the greater good

--
David

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:38:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:48:08 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Best of luck. I hope you get it and you build the house. We need more
people
like you around.

I hope he's got plenty of money, as
the kind of spec you just came up
with will cost a fortune! Probably half
a million to build, I reckon.

You reckon? On what do you base this groundless assertion? Zero heating
houses cost no more to build than any other. It is primarily design and
selecting the correct materials.

All that kind of stuff is specialist work that doesn't come cheap.
This is not Barrat the Builders we're talking about here. I reckon you
might get it erected for a bit cheaper, say £495K.

MM

Andy Hall

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.


That old nazi? The man wasn't right in the head and hadn't been for
years. He was a disgrace to the office he held.

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:18:39 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:


Andy Hall

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.


That old nazi? The man wasn't right in the head and hadn't been for
years. He was a disgrace to the office he held.


What a ridiculous remark. He was one of the most eminent judges of
the 20th century and brought to English law an ability to see past the
precedent and to focus on the law being a means to an end and not an
end in itself. In other words, not allowing legal technicality to
obscure the interests of justice.

Even the idiot Blair held Denning in high esteem during his years as a
barrister.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:18:39 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:


Andy Hall

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.


That old nazi? The man wasn't right in the head and hadn't been for
years. He was a disgrace to the office he held.


What a ridiculous remark.

Well said ! If only we had some of his common sense judgements nowadays
rather than some of the eye-openers that occur far too regularly.

Mike Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:25:22 +0100, John Smith wrote:


explain to me how wood burning stoves are eco-friendly?


Duh, they are not burning a finite resource like oil or gas! Hint: You
can grow more wood...

MM

Where does oil and gas come from? If you know the answer then you will
also know the it is not finite.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 22:30:36 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:18:39 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:


Andy Hall

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning, former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal matters
and achieve a fair outcome.


That old nazi? The man wasn't right in the head and hadn't been for
years. He was a disgrace to the office he held.


What a ridiculous remark.

Well said ! If only we had some of his common sense judgements nowadays
rather than some of the eye-openers that occur far too regularly.

I found some extracts from some of them:

http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/alfre...n_denning.html

The Miller vs. Jackson case is very pertinent to this thread and
Denning sums up the point very eloquently.

"In summer time village cricket is the delight of everyone" was how
Lord Denning MR famously began his judgment in Miller v Jackson [1977]
1 QB 966, 976. An injunction had been granted to local householders
who complained of cricket balls landing in their gardens. Lord Denning
feared that, if it were upheld, cricket would cease in the village and
"the young men will turn to other things"

He held that the public interest in the playing of cricket should
prevail over the individual interests of the householders, and,
instead of the injunction, awarded £400 for past and future
inconvenience.

I don't know what the outcome of the "Hook the street trader" case
was, but the introduction to the judgment is hilarious.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote

This was a made up person. Duh!

Like you, you mean?

Your wit hold no bounds. Duh!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 22:30:36 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:18:39 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:


Andy Hall

I'm reminded of some of the famous judgments by Lord Denning,
former
Master of the Rolls. He would apply the common-sense principles
of
village life in his native Whitchurch to quite complex legal
matters
and achieve a fair outcome.


That old nazi? The man wasn't right in the head and hadn't been for
years. He was a disgrace to the office he held.


What a ridiculous remark.

Well said ! If only we had some of his common sense judgements nowadays
rather than some of the eye-openers that occur far too regularly.

I found some extracts from some of them:

http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/alfre...n_denning.html

The Miller vs. Jackson case is very pertinent to this thread and
Denning sums up the point very eloquently.

"In summer time village cricket is the delight of everyone" was how
Lord Denning MR famously began his judgment in Miller v Jackson [1977]
1 QB 966, 976. An injunction had been granted to local householders
who complained of cricket balls landing in their gardens. Lord Denning
feared that, if it were upheld, cricket would cease in the village and
"the young men will turn to other things"

He held that the public interest in the playing of cricket should
prevail over the individual interests of the householders, and,
instead of the injunction, awarded £400 for past and future
inconvenience.

I don't know what the outcome of the "Hook the street trader" case
was, but the introduction to the judgment is hilarious.

He was a demented old fool.