British Wildlife Decline
Comments
-
Chris Bass wrote:It is also a case of councils playing the big developers too - we'll let you build there just so long as you build us these shops/develop this road/build a school etc
Section 106 Agreements / Planning Obligations aren't really playing the developer, it's just a way of ensuring the impact of a development is mitigated. They are more noticeable on larger developments as they can fund items in full but even small developments can be subject to them. It just might be in the form of a financial contribution that gets put in a pot to fund, for example, an extra classroom at the local school. There's also CIL that charges a levy proportionate to the development size to pay for infrastructure improvements.0 -
Pross wrote:Chris Bass wrote:It is also a case of councils playing the big developers too - we'll let you build there just so long as you build us these shops/develop this road/build a school etc
Section 106 Agreements / Planning Obligations aren't really playing the developer, it's just a way of ensuring the impact of a development is mitigated. They are more noticeable on larger developments as they can fund items in full but even small developments can be subject to them. It just might be in the form of a financial contribution that gets put in a pot to fund, for example, an extra classroom at the local school. There's also CIL that charges a levy proportionate to the development size to pay for infrastructure improvements.
If only the local authority did invest that money. As a reference Christchurch BC (now BPC Council) passed planning for TW on 860 houses on greenbelt to East of town. They stated that the existing school and medical infrastructure could absorb the increases and waived it through. I calculate that kind of development will have a population of approx 3500 to 4000. With a very conservative estimate that one fifth are school age that's a minimum of 700 school places to find.
Therefore the council are going to bank the money like nearly all of those around the UK.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
silvers wrote:HaydenM wrote:
I'd say it's a bit of both, there is very little 'natural' about a baron sheep bitten hillside. I'd say the best place to get environmental change is in relatively unproductive sheep and grouse moors which cover most of the open space in Scotland (I know I'm being quite Scotland-centric but it makes a nice change
) rather than eroding or removing the productive capability of a fairly small proportion of it for marginal gain. Commercial forests can be quite samey sometimes but once you get above the productive planting line I think it looks quite cool to look down on personally
Totally agree with your last point especially, if we want stuff to change it won't change without their help
I've not done a lot of scottish hillwalking - but I haven't seen many sheep anywhere north of Glasgow - mainly deer up north isn't it? perhaps the trees spoil the line of sight through the scope?
There will probably be sheep on most of it but the stocking density has changed due to subsidy changes. Deer are everywhere and there's next to nothing you can do about it overall. The paid for expensive stalking is up on the hill tops where trees wouldn't grow, in a forest they are pest and you really want them gone. I'd probably pay someone to shoot them off the restocks rather than have a recreational stalker in paying thousands a year to not be very effective0 -
HaydenM wrote:silvers wrote:HaydenM wrote:
I'd say it's a bit of both, there is very little 'natural' about a baron sheep bitten hillside. I'd say the best place to get environmental change is in relatively unproductive sheep and grouse moors which cover most of the open space in Scotland (I know I'm being quite Scotland-centric but it makes a nice change ) rather than eroding or removing the productive capability of a fairly small proportion of it for marginal gain. Commercial forests can be quite samey sometimes but once you get above the productive planting line I think it looks quite cool to look down on personally
Totally agree with your last point especially, if we want stuff to change it won't change without their help
I've not done a lot of scottish hillwalking - but I haven't seen many sheep anywhere north of Glasgow - mainly deer up north isn't it? perhaps the trees spoil the line of sight through the scope?
There will probably be sheep on most of it but the stocking density has changed due to subsidy changes. Deer are everywhere and there's next to nothing you can do about it overall. The paid for expensive stalking is up on the hill tops where trees wouldn't grow, in a forest they are pest and you really want them gone. I'd probably pay someone to shoot them off the restocks rather than have a recreational stalker in paying thousands a year to not be very effective
A pest controller I know had a contract to cull deer on a large estate and was paid £££ to do this. He then sold deer shooting holidays to rich Europeans and simply cleared up what they missed.Wilier Izoard XP0 -
laurentian wrote:HaydenM wrote:silvers wrote:HaydenM wrote:
I'd say it's a bit of both, there is very little 'natural' about a baron sheep bitten hillside. I'd say the best place to get environmental change is in relatively unproductive sheep and grouse moors which cover most of the open space in Scotland (I know I'm being quite Scotland-centric but it makes a nice change ) rather than eroding or removing the productive capability of a fairly small proportion of it for marginal gain. Commercial forests can be quite samey sometimes but once you get above the productive planting line I think it looks quite cool to look down on personally
Totally agree with your last point especially, if we want stuff to change it won't change without their help
I've not done a lot of scottish hillwalking - but I haven't seen many sheep anywhere north of Glasgow - mainly deer up north isn't it? perhaps the trees spoil the line of sight through the scope?
There will probably be sheep on most of it but the stocking density has changed due to subsidy changes. Deer are everywhere and there's next to nothing you can do about it overall. The paid for expensive stalking is up on the hill tops where trees wouldn't grow, in a forest they are pest and you really want them gone. I'd probably pay someone to shoot them off the restocks rather than have a recreational stalker in paying thousands a year to not be very effective
A pest controller I know had a contract to cull deer on a large estate and was paid £££ to do this. He then sold deer shooting holidays to rich Europeans and simply cleared up what they missed.
Part of the issue in Scotland is estates are/were valued based on the number of stags culled each year so they feed them in the winter then charge people thousands to shoot them. This means that they are now so prevalent that they starve to death in the winter or eat all my restocked young trees, that or strip bark off mature trees to suck out the sap. If we are paying a stalker then I stipulate that they can't take out paying guests as I want a proper job done, not selective shooting to keep the big ones for clients. The majority pay us a stalking rent (as is traditional) rather than us paying them, when the crops were mostly mid rotation it doesn't matter. There are only issues when I come on site to find all the young trees are being eaten and have a good moan to the forest manager..
0 -
Mr Goo wrote:Pross wrote:Chris Bass wrote:It is also a case of councils playing the big developers too - we'll let you build there just so long as you build us these shops/develop this road/build a school etc
Section 106 Agreements / Planning Obligations aren't really playing the developer, it's just a way of ensuring the impact of a development is mitigated. They are more noticeable on larger developments as they can fund items in full but even small developments can be subject to them. It just might be in the form of a financial contribution that gets put in a pot to fund, for example, an extra classroom at the local school. There's also CIL that charges a levy proportionate to the development size to pay for infrastructure improvements.
If only the local authority did invest that money. As a reference Christchurch BC (now BPC Council) passed planning for TW on 860 houses on greenbelt to East of town. They stated that the existing school and medical infrastructure could absorb the increases and waived it through. I calculate that kind of development will have a population of approx 3500 to 4000. With a very conservative estimate that one fifth are school age that's a minimum of 700 school places to find.
Therefore the council are going to bank the money like nearly all of those around the UK.
Believe it or not, the Councils have complex formulas that get used to determine existing and required capacity for school places etc. They don't just 'wave things through' despite the what the general public like to claim at every meeting or consultation event. People should really make more effort to understand the system and be better informed.
Are you referring to the Roeshot Hill site? If so then this is what it says in the Design and Access Statement:3.3.25 Following the public consultation, meetings were held with the local education authority (Dorset County Council) who confirmed that they did not wish to see a new school provided on the site and that there is capacity and scope to expand existing schools. Whilst the application does not provide a new school we have considered where a one form entry and two form entry school could be located within the site should the education position change in the future. Figures 3.13 and 3.14 indicate potential locations
So it appears that the Masterplan was developed to allow for a school to be provided even though the Council determined there was no need for one at that stage.
Also, to go back to your original post on this thread have a look at the application on the planning portal http://planning.christchurchandeastdorset.gov.uk/plandisp.aspx?recno=105892, it's quite interesting as despite you also claimed there that schemes get waved through with little scrutiny and yet you can see on there that the Developer submitted an Environmental Statement split down into Volume 1 (498 pages), Volume 2 (26 pages) and (by my reckoning) 28 documents containing the relevant technical appendices. If that's your idea of something being waved through without scrutiny I'd hate to see the paperwork generated by what you would consider a thorough due diligence process. That's just at the outline application stage as well so there will also be all the necessary information that will have to be submitted to discharge conditions and the reserved matters.
Incidentally, the Environmental Statement is a requirement of a European Directive that has been encompassed in the Town & Country Planning Act so maybe the Government can make things less onerous for the poor old Developer from 1st November once you've got your longed for exit from stringent EU legislation 0 -
Bloody experts coming on here knowing what they’re talking about and dispelling myths with facts. Come the revolution...0
-
Well, I think we are all fed up with experts.......Veronese68 wrote:Bloody experts coming on here knowing what they’re talking about and dispelling myths with facts. Come the revolution...Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:
Well, I think we are all fed up with experts.......Veronese68 wrote:Bloody experts coming on here knowing what they’re talking about and dispelling myths with facts. Come the revolution...
I agree. Top quality bollox has much more scope.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Mr Goo wrote:Pross wrote:Chris Bass wrote:It is also a case of councils playing the big developers too - we'll let you build there just so long as you build us these shops/develop this road/build a school etc
Section 106 Agreements / Planning Obligations aren't really playing the developer, it's just a way of ensuring the impact of a development is mitigated. They are more noticeable on larger developments as they can fund items in full but even small developments can be subject to them. It just might be in the form of a financial contribution that gets put in a pot to fund, for example, an extra classroom at the local school. There's also CIL that charges a levy proportionate to the development size to pay for infrastructure improvements.
If only the local authority did invest that money. As a reference Christchurch BC (now BPC Council) passed planning for TW on 860 houses on greenbelt to East of town. They stated that the existing school and medical infrastructure could absorb the increases and waived it through. I calculate that kind of development will have a population of approx 3500 to 4000. With a very conservative estimate that one fifth are school age that's a minimum of 700 school places to find.
Therefore the council are going to bank the money like nearly all of those around the UK.
I may be focusing on the wrong bit here but i think something may be slightly wonky with your sums here!
that would mean that most houses would have more than 4 people living in them?
firstly, people barely have one kid these days! let alone 2 or three! and most new build sites are bought buy first time buyers and have 2 or 3 people living in them.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Mr Goo wrote:Pross wrote:Chris Bass wrote:It is also a case of councils playing the big developers too - we'll let you build there just so long as you build us these shops/develop this road/build a school etc
Section 106 Agreements / Planning Obligations aren't really playing the developer, it's just a way of ensuring the impact of a development is mitigated. They are more noticeable on larger developments as they can fund items in full but even small developments can be subject to them. It just might be in the form of a financial contribution that gets put in a pot to fund, for example, an extra classroom at the local school. There's also CIL that charges a levy proportionate to the development size to pay for infrastructure improvements.
If only the local authority did invest that money. As a reference Christchurch BC (now BPC Council) passed planning for TW on 860 houses on greenbelt to East of town. They stated that the existing school and medical infrastructure could absorb the increases and waived it through. I calculate that kind of development will have a population of approx 3500 to 4000. With a very conservative estimate that one fifth are school age that's a minimum of 700 school places to find.
Therefore the council are going to bank the money like nearly all of those around the UK.
I may be focusing on the wrong bit here but i think something may be slightly wonky with your sums here!
that would mean that most houses would have more than 4 people living in them?
firstly, people barely have one kid these days! let alone 2 or three! and most new build sites are bought buy first time buyers and have 2 or 3 people living in them.
The data for the site (which I found on the planning portal I linked to) stated the average household is something like 2.5 people. I assume that was based on census information for the locality so yes, the guesstimate is way out before any other assumptions are even considered.
The small household size is something that plays a massive part in the housing shortage that gets overlooked these days. Even 30 years ago I suspect that most people stayed in the family home until they got married themselves.0 -
And here we are, rattling about in a 4 bed semi after the kids have left home. We'd downsize to a 2 bed bungalow with a bit more garden, but every time anything hits the market it's snapped up by a developer who flattens it and shoehorns 4 x 5 bedroomed 'executive homes' in.
Which are beyond the means of first time buyers and those with young families, so end up being bought by wealthy retired couples who rattle around in them, or by buy to let landlords who turn them into multiple occupancy rentals.
All the alleged retirement property being built round here is bloody flats with no gardens, or perhaps a share of a communal space in exchange for an escalating maintenance charge. No thanks.0 -
The best way we could afford something nice on two decent graduate salaries (plus 3/4 years increase) was to move to sunny Scotland. I don't know many people who have bought houses down south in my peer group. I imagine that the situation here is a bit more like South England was years ago where you could get a degree level job and afford something nicer than a council house. I've gone totally off track from the OP here, apologies...0
-
My friend had someone from London come and stay with them - they couldn't believe she could afford the house she lived in - that's Walsall for you
www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:My friend had someone from London come and stay with them - they couldn't believe she could afford the house she lived in - that's Walsall for you
Does she own all of Walsall or just a few streets.
Actually, when I bought my house on the edge of Leeds I could have spent the same money on a street on the edge of central Leeds (well, about 10 houses of a street!). Those are probably each now worth what I originally paid for my house. Probably would have been a three times better investment but I just wanted to live in a nice house.Faster than a tent.......0 -
For the price of my house you could buy a street in a nearby town. You just need specialist cleaners to remove the waste left behind. Human waste, drug accoutrements, blood, etc.. I don't think that was an attractive proposition for me at the time or even now.0
