duffer
Well-Known Member
Fair comment Monners - and I defer to your better knowledge here. When it comes to politicians national and local (or kleptomaniac collies), a little cynicism goes a long way.
All true as stated - but this Govt has been pushing very strongly to reconsider designated green belt and greenspace land, hence the change in the planning laws and the watering down of environmental guidelines.
It may well be that there is good cause to rebuff these plans, but I remain somewhat cynical as to Pickles' intentions (re my previous post), as it goes against the grain of the last 5 years in regard to planning and Govt policy of driving development, growth and jobs e.g LEPs
Fair comment Monners - and I defer to your better knowledge here. When it comes to politicians national and local (or kleptomaniac collies), a little cynicism goes a long way.
Problem with politics and environmental stuff is that the policital cycle turns every 5 years or so, whereras my world involves planning for decades in the future. Having said that, I have met some very forward thinking types (including ministers), but they understandably end up towing the party (vote winning) line - fair enough.
As FP pointed out though, Pickles is a loose cannon (or words to that affect) - much like Prescot could be in a similar role in the past (and don't get me started on that idiot Owen Patterson -bizarrely environment secratary for a while - he almost cost me my job with his "cost cutting")
Absolutely fair point, Albatross. In truth Brighton did ultimately manage to build their stadium in green belt, and next to the very protected South Downs to boot. But it took them a very long time, as others here have pointed out. Even if everything else was in Fisher's favour, like having the money for example, a stadium in the green belt surrounding Coventry isn't going to get permission without an awful amount of effort you'd fancy.
Brighton's ground was built on greenfield not greenbelt land. That might sound like I'm splitting hairs but in the world of planning it makes the world of difference.
Brighton's ground was built on greenfield not greenbelt land. That might sound like I'm splitting hairs but in the world of planning it makes the world of difference.
It does indeed make a difference, but it's described as greenbelt in a number of places, including here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4601378.stm
And it's also either within or adjacent to an Area of Outstanding National Beauty depending on how you read it.
That's wrong if they are describing it as that. Here is a map of greenbelt land across England:
View attachment 4081
Are there areas of outstanding to quote Pressa of Outstanding natural beauty that are not logged as greenbelt
I used to live in Brighton and know that numerous sites were proposed and rejected before Falmer was even considered. After Falmer was identified as a potential site for a football stadium a referendum was held to allow the the residents of Brighton and Hove the chance to say if they wanted a stadium and, if so, if they agreed with the Falmer site. In the event, 68% of those who voted supported a stadium at Falmer. Do you think we can have a referendum too?
According to Maton in the CT today as they can just change the status of the land! That can't be right, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having green belt in the first place if the council can just change it at will?
If a nice building or one of national importance goes up, does it automatically become listed or is a decision made over time? Why can't areas become greenbelt after people make decisions on it? If a rural location has small trees that eventually become a forest and/or becomes habitat to wildlife are you saying it's wrong to turn that land into greenbelt? Or is this another dig at the council who initially passed this development?
No I'm not saying it can never change over time but that isn't what is happening here is it?
This plans have been rejected as it will be building on green belt land, Maton isn't saying maybe lets look again in 20 years and the area might have changed and if it has we'll revisit the plans, he's saying lets change the status of the land now so the plans go through. To me if land status can be changed to suit planning applications then it makes a nonsense of the status in the first place.
Of course if this is how people wish planning to operate then would it be unreasonable to expect the same for any new stadium location put forward by SISU?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?