Mother Fucking Government Types

[DanaC]

Final points then I'll stop I promise ;p

You have to remember that the UK is not the same as America. If you 'Go West' here, you'll hit the sea in a day. Greenbelt building restrictions were hard won. They protect the nation's landscape. Those people may own the piece of land on which they build, but the landscape they affect belongs to all of us.

The same regulations preventing that young couple from building that lovely little house for their children, also protect their landscape from other, less welcome incursions. A line has to be drawn and that is where it was drawn. Everybody knows that's where it was drawn, everybody knows you cannot build in greenbelt land without a fight. This was a victory (or rather a series of victories) won by those concerned with the over development of the countryside and the loss of untouched land, for future generations as well as the present. Often against the opposition of moneyed land developers and big business.

This is a lovely little house and pushes the envelope on environmentally safe building. But one of the reasons land in the countryside is so cheap to buy is because it is so heavily restricted in development terms. They took advantage of that and then built anyway.

I really, really hate when people build on greenbelt without permission and arbitrarily change the landscape for everyone. The system as it is imperfect and is currently being rewritten (again) to take greater account of local need for areas with serious housing shortages (as an example). But it is there to protect all of us. Without those protections in place we'd have lost many more places of outstanding beauty or environmental importance.

It matters. If we build on all the fields and valleys, then we have stolen the green and pleasant land from under our children's feet.

I know many, many people who had to change their plans or sell the plot they'd bought and try and find somewhere else to develop, because they played by the rules that are in place to protect us all. I also know of major developments which have had the wherewithall and resources to push planning authorities over a barrel on exceptions and special need and got their own way in the face of largescale popular opposition. Something that is much harder to do for an individual.

But those people knew what they were doing. You cannot live in the UK and not know that building in the countryside is heavily restricted. There are other options. Land which has been used for residences in the past and has returned to green land, but is not considered 'green belt' is often made available for development, but restricted in terms of the density: this is exactly the sort of project which would sit favourably in that kind of area.

But, as far as I can tell, they chose to use untouched land in an agricultural part of the green belt. That is about as close to hanging a sign on the door saying 'please demolish me' as makes no difference.


[eta] and planning departments know all this too. In my experience, planning officers will go to enormous lengths to help an applicant find a way to make their project happen. They will liaise with applicants and agents and architects, assist them in finding alternative sites, and scour the regulations to find a way to allow useful and environmentally helpful buildings to be built. And anyone with an application can go to their local councillor and request it be heard at a planning committee, where the decision is made by vote by elected members, as indeed any application which requires a complex planning decision. These meetings are open to the public. Appeals can be taken to a national authority which can rule against the council.

[DanaC]

My world view is in tune with some aspects :P

But it's also borne of a very different physical environment. There is open countryside in the states into which the whole of Wales could be dropped and lost.

[DanaC]

Population density of the UK: 260 pop./sq km
Population density of the US: 34 pop./sq km

[DanaC]

My general points I stand by but:

However supporters insist that the building, which is next to the Lammas eco village, is created from the resources on the land and fulfils the Welsh Government's One Planet development policy which they claim gives the go ahead to building homes in open countryside in

That's quite a compelling argument. Having now read the article properly (;P) I am less critical of the couple. I hadn't realised it was right up against an eco village. I still think they should have tried for permission in advance. Given it is next to the eco village, and given the distinct regulation for Wales, then they probably would have got permission. And as I understand it, it is in the appeals process now. Which means they may well end up being allowed to keep it.



[eta] I am equally annoyed by 'nimbyism' too. If you think your area is special, organise as residents and apply for protected status. if you can make a case for it and it gets through, good on ya. And if the patch of land that stretches out behind your garden and onto the next block is home to rare wildlife or protected species, then it needs protecting. But the fact that three new houses will spoil the view from your living room is not material to planning consent. Nor is the fact that you consider your area to be just right as it is a reason to stop new homes being built. It can't all be shunted onto the poorer, built up areas of town.

I live in a tiny village which is slowly joining up with surrounding connurbations. I have no problem with that. Some parts of it, where the older buildings are, or at the edge on one side where it leads into farmland, are protected. The rest isn't, there's just a general assumption that building materials will be in keeping with the area. Many of my neighbours object to each new spurt of housing. They want it all to stay as it is. It can't. We need houses. Other people should be able to come and live here. There is a balance to be struck between protecting our heritage and environment and facilitating development and innovation.

[orthodoc]

I started out disagreeing with your point of view, Dana, and then rethought it as you made your argument. While in this particular case I suspect there may be local personalities or agendas that make the decision inappropriate (given the location of the eco-village right next door), I agree that green space, endangered species, and sensitive ecosystems must be protected for future generations. It's our responsibility. While there's a great deal of open space in North America, there are also ecosystems here that are incredibly fragile. Unfortunately, big corporations and developers have been allowed to destroy them with impunity for the most part.

People do need a place to live; that being said, if we don't act as a community with a long-term view to respect for and protection of our surroundings, we'll destroy what can't be replaced and our entire society will eventually collapse (possibly the lesser of the two evils, but not much of a legacy for our children). Britain, being so much smaller geographically, is confronted with the issue more immediately than we think we are here, but it applies to everyone.

I have to say, Dana - I have very seldom met anyone who presents an argument as cogently as you. Even when I don't agree I learn something and have to respect your point of view.

[footfootfoot]

Proving once again, that you cannot legislate morality and ethics.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How do you think they got, "So Rich".

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Proving once again, that you cannot legislate morality and ethics.

We legislate morality and ethics all the time. Some of the morality and ethics are questionable or negative, as in the case of corporations like Haliburton being given free rein to wreck environments and lives ...

[footfootfoot]

We try to legislate morality and ethics, but morality and ethics are dynamic and situational and that leads to the age old problem of the letter versus the spirit of the law and the never ending quest for loopholes in order to circumvent the law. Sometimes the loophole allows one to do what is morally right despite what the law requires and sometimes it allows the opposite.

When people manipulate the laws with a view to what is best for themselves it is usually the death knell of morality and ethics.

[DanaC]

Thankyou Ortho, that's a lovely thing to say.

I think my time as a local councillor and doing a higher degree have both really helped me build a more effective communication style. That might be why i don't get into as many board fights as I used to :P

[xoxoxoBruce]

Nah, it just made you jaded and bitter. Maybe a little complacent too.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

That might be why i don't get into as many board fights as I used to

Age has more to do with it. In particular, how a prefrontal cortex grows. With age, we think less with our emotions (those lower level functions that children use). And more from a brain lobe less influenced by emotion. It is the process of becoming an adult. Or more adult.

That paragraph includes a perfect example. You were called old. The emotional would feel insulted. You were called older. And the underlying science says why that is good. An adult who is still more of a child would be insulted. An adult thinking logically saw what was only posted in that paragraph.

[IamSam]

hmmm... I think I've become meaner with age. I attribute this to the increasing audacity as well as sheer numbers of the idiots we now must all deal with on a daily basis. I believe science wants to study whatever it is that passes for my prefrontal cortex these days. For all the good THAT will do anyone.

I visualize Dana as one day becoming like one of those Buddhist monks who just float around in the mountains of Tibet - only she'll be floating around the Cellar!

[xoxoxoBruce]

I hope not, things floating around in the cellar means a burst pipe or backed up sewer.

[tw]

Learn how to use a prefrontal cortex from the World Wrestling Federation. Head butting.