/ Developers told they can build in national parks -

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Alex Ekins - on 25 Sep 2013
muppetfilter - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: They have to be F**king kidding.. Twunts.
gethin_allen on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins:
This is probably in response to his Tory friends who already own property in these places and fancy a barn conversion to make a few quid from their outbuildings.
I could see that within existing built-up areas the NP rules could be eased in very special circumstances to allow small business to survive but I'm too cynical to think that it would be managed correctly and give it a few years and we'd have a tesco extra on kinder.
dutybooty - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: Not normally too bothered by environmental/planning issues been a little bit right wing at heart (shoot me down UKC) but this is absolutely ridiculous! Goes against the whole concept of a national park.
Nicholas Livesey on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: F*cking cnuts...unbelievable wankery :(
Howard J - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: Development already takes place in National Parks. Thousands of people live and work in them, they are not wildernesses. Biodiversity offsetting (both in and outside NPs) also already takes place and is often a condition of planning consents, but is rather ad hoc at the moment. A consultation is taking place on ways to improve this and also to encourage landowners to undertake biodiversity projects where development is not taking place.

Opinion on whether or not this is a good thing is divided along predictable lines.
The New NickB - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins:

I've not seen the details and it will come down to the details, but as has been pointed out National Parks have always had development, but with slightly different rules, these restrictions have caused problems in lots of communities due to a lack of housing for local people / workers.

As it has come from Patterson it is probably a complete dogs dinner.
1poundSOCKS - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Howard J: I wondered where all the roads and houses in the Peak came from. :)
Trangia - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins:

That's a great idea! I'd love to live in the Lake District. Saturate the area with enough houses and the prices will come down. In the Peak you could build up against those gritstone edges, it would significantly save on building costs as you wouldn't need to build a back wall.
jkarran - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to dutybooty:

> Not normally too bothered by environmental/planning issues been a little bit right wing at heart (shoot me down UKC) but this is absolutely ridiculous! Goes against the whole concept of a national park.

What is 'the whole concept of a national park' and how does this automatically have to be seen to be going against it? Do we really want our parks continue dying with local folk and businesses priced out and their homes which become investments and play things for wealthy visitors?

Of course this sort of shift in priorities can and no doubt will be abused but the idea of twee little villages frozen in time is just killing those villages.

Done right it could be a positive thing, done wrong it could be a mess. Chances are it'll be a bit of both. The 'offsetting' bit mostly sounds like green-wash bollocks.

jk
malky_c - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: I'm confused - developers already build stuff in national parks, and always have done. How is this news? I realise it's in the Mail, so it is obviously over-the-top alarmist stuff.
Tom Last - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to jkarran:

The 'offsetting' bit mostly sounds like green-wash bollocks.

Yeah just sounds like like an excuse to act carte blanche elsewhere, as in "Don't worry about the loss of that heathland, we'd plant a few shrubs in the neighbouring brownfield site."

I noticed quite a few houses went up in Widdecombe-in-the-Moor a few years back, which were at least in my eyes built rather sympathetically with the place and actually increased the size of the village significantly. Given they can do this is in arguably the most picturesque and well visited village on Dartmoor why can't they - with a little thought - do it elsewhere? Why the need to legislate?
dutybooty - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: "National parks are protected areas of beautiful countryside" ripped straight off their website.

If you develop it, it's not protected or countryside.

I understand small developments have always taken place, the largest being roads, the largest building project I'm aware of in a park is that whole new roundabout/tesco in Matlock.

The impression I got from this article is housing estates developed on large swaths of land.
Coel Hellier - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to dutybooty:

> The impression I got from this article is housing estates developed on large swaths of land.

Though what the article actually says is things like:

"It could provide real opportunities in our National Parks, where the necessary extension of a farm building could result in the enhancement of an existing habitat or the creation of a new one."
Martin W on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to dutybooty:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins) "National parks are protected areas of beautiful countryside" ripped straight off their website.

Whose web site? The only hit I get on Google with that exact phrase is the General Register Office for Scotland. It's also an incomplete quote. The full text reads: "National Parks are protected areas of beautiful countryside, wildlife and cultural heritage."

Natural England says:

"National Parks are extensive tracts of country that are protected by law for future generations because of their natural beauty and for the opportunities they offer for open air recreation.

The parks are living and working landscapes, with an increasing focus on supporting the communities and economic activity that underpin the qualities for which each have been designated."

Reference http://www.naturalengland.gov.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/nationalparks/default.aspx

The National Parks web site says:

"There are 15 members of the National Parks family, beautiful areas of mountains, meadows, moorlands, woods and wetlands.

They are areas of protected countryside that everyone can visit, and where people live, work and shape the landscape."

Reference http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/

> If you develop it, it's not protected or countryside.

That statement seems to be significantly at odds with both the above definitions of a National Park.

The OED defines "countryside" as: the land and scenery of a rural area. It defines "rural" as: in, relating to, or characteristic of the countryside rather than the town, which is a little circular, but basically bears out Wikipedia's definition: In general, a rural area is a geographic area that is located outside cities and towns. So "countryside" doesn't mean nothing but wild landscape - it can include villages, farms, and industrial installations appropriate to a rural environment (eg something like a dairy).

As Howard J points out, development and biodiversity offsetting can already happen in National Parks. The announcement as reported in the Mail sounds to me like a typical mis-informed, or (if you're feeling less charitable) cynically misleading political soundbite designed to appeal to people who believe that government spends all its time working out ways to stifle private enterprise.
Dave Cumberland - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to gethin_allen:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins)
> This is probably in response to his Tory friends who already own property in these places and fancy a barn conversion to make a few quid from their outbuildings.
> I could see that within existing built-up areas the NP rules could be eased in very special circumstances to allow small business to survive but I'm too cynical to think that it would be managed correctly and give it a few years and we'd have a tesco extra on kinder.

Where I live in the Lakes it is the Champagne Socialist cronies who rent out much property for speculative gain with no concern about local culture or sustainability. Socialism is evil and greedy and keeps poor people poor. this bunch are hypocrites, so don't blaim the Tories for your prejudices.
The New NickB - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
> (In reply to gethin_allen)
> [...]
>
> Where I live in the Lakes it is the Champagne Socialist cronies who rent out much property for speculative gain with no concern about local culture or sustainability. Socialism is evil and greedy and keeps poor people poor. this bunch are hypocrites, so don't blaim the Tories for your prejudices.

A good piece of satire, a bit too obvious to be great, but a top effort!
1poundSOCKS - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Dave Cumberland: Why is socialism evil and greedy?
The New NickB - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
> (In reply to Dave Cumberland) Why is socialism evil and greedy?

I think his argument is that the people he sees engaging in a form of capitalism that he doesn't approve of, or at least cannot afford to engage in himself, must be socialists because he does approve of socialists. Socialists are bad because they do things he doesn't approve of, the perfect circular argument really. It is almost a work of genius!
toad - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to dutybooty)
>
> [...]
>
> Though what the article actually says is things like:
>
> "It could provide real opportunities in our National Parks, where the necessary extension of a farm building could result in the enhancement of an existing habitat or the creation of a new one."

I've done mitigation work on sites outside national parks. very rarely, something much better for wildlife comes as a result of development. Usually it's unsustainable.
myserable old git - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: This is the same Paterson who was minded some weeks ago to ban the import of Sweet Chestnuts because of canker which still doesn't appear to have happened, wants to blast Buzzards out of trees and considers it impractical to shoot foxes whilst approving of shooting nocturnal badgers.
Whatever your politics the man is a total halfwit who is only interested in protecting the "landed gentry", get real if he thinks it's a good idea it'll make his friends money and do sod all for the rest of us!
altirando - on 13 Oct 2013
In reply to Alex Ekins: And National Forests too. A so called holiday village of 70 lodges has just been approved by Cheshire West in Delamere Forest, supposedly part of the Mersey National Forest - with an access road through the heart of the forest. This northern half of Delamere is popular with mountain bikers. I wonder if this could happen in say the New Forest? The arguments advanced of jobs etc could just as easily be applied to Hyde Park but it seems unlikely to happen there!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.