Sustainability.
Can we drill this word/concept/idea/revolution into all school children/teachers, work places, hospitals, churches, cinemas, radio shows, TV, internet, newspapers, facebook, you tube, twitter, android, x-box, ps2, wii players and whatever other media you care to think of before we're all sunk....
It's a grey area, and of course, the newspapers aren't interested in sustaining anything other than their own growth and sales figures...
We're currently objecting to a proposed development of 18 houses on the 0.8hectare neglected field behind our property. NIMBYism I hear you cry, and yes, we'd prefer that these dwellings were built somewhere else. The reasons are many, but most strongly in our favour is that the piece of land in question lies in the North Wessex Downs AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and is thus protected from this type of development. There are practical issues on this field (it is low lying and any development would need a pumping station), and access is also an issue as a new road would be created bringing an extra junction within 150m of a primary school. So safety issues accrue.
The developer states that the field is situated in a 'highly sustainable position' - which in planning terms means you can walk into town and access the amenities (bus links). In our objection we pointed out that the proposed 18 families with 'x' many children needing schooling have already lost the places in the school 150m down the road, as the 200 new families in the 2009 Berkeley Homes development on the other side of the school, have already taken all the places, and many families have 2 or more primary school aged children at separate schools because the local school is full...
So building 18 more houses is sustainable, according to the planners/developer, and the Government in its wisdom is changing the planning rules to favour 'sustainable' development. On the back of this the District Council have brought in a new interim housing plan - to deal with their ongoing shortfall (there is an approved plan to build 2000 or so new houses on a disused airfield, but the developers on that site are already 5 years behind, haven't started, and are unlikely to start anything in the current financial climate). So they waive the rules and allow the small development behind us to go ahead. Or do they?
Well, not for the moment, the latest application closes 18th January, and we'll keep fighting the good fight. It is nimbyism, but also the principal of the matter. If we let 'them' build on AONB there won't be anything outstandingly naturally beautiful of this country of ours to hand down to our children and our grandchildren. I for one couldn't look myself in the eye and say 'I did my best'.
There are 1,000,000 empty properties out there (so I read) and surely brownfield (airfield) should be developed first before green fields are lost forever. If you build on the green fields where do we grow the food to feed the occupants of the greenfield houses? Chicken or egg? For those who know me, this is where I start to (mis)quote Joni Mitchell's 'Big Yellow Taxi' - ... 'they paved paradise, put in a parking lot... don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got 'til it's gone... they cut down the trees and put them in a tree museum, and they charged all the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em''. That protest song was written in 1972 or thereabouts, and it's still valid today, more so, in my opinion.
Growth. The other side of the sustainability equation. And I'll tackle that next time...
Keep it sweet! Kat
No comments:
Post a Comment