Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

HELP SAVE DEVON'S COUNTRYSIDE

Expand Messages
  • Steve Melia by way of Ecovillage Networ
    Two councils in Devon have just submitted plans for a new town on a greenfield flood plain and a Concrete Valley of ribbon development 3 miles long and 1 mile
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Two councils in Devon have just submitted plans for a new town on a
      greenfield flood plain and a Concrete Valley of ribbon development 3 miles
      long and 1 mile wide. For more details visit
      <http://www.shard.org.uk>www.shard.org.uk and
      <http://www.eastdevon.co.uk>www.eastdevon.co.uk

      Can you help in the fight?

      1 Join our St. Valentine's Day demonstration. Meet at Follaton House,
      Plymouth Road, Totnes, 1 p.m. Thursday February 14th. Bring whistles,
      drums, airhorns, anything to make as much noise as possible.

      2 Submit an objection - see <http://www.shard.org.uk>www.shard.org.uk
      and <http://www.saveeastdevon.co.uk>www.saveeastdevon.co.uk

      3 Please copy this message to everyone you know who cares about the
      countryside.

      From the Committee of
      South Hams Against Rural Destruction
      <mailto:mail@...>mail@....<mailto:mail@...>uk


      --
      EVN-UK MAILING LIST: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecovillageuk/messages/
      Subscribe (approx. 1 post/2wks.): ecovillageuk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      ECOVILLAGE NETWORK UK - http://www.ecovillages.org/uk/network/
      Populating the rhetoric of rural sustainability
      Volunteers: Russ Curgenven, Tony Gosling, Nick Mack-Smith, Pam Norris,
      Joyce Kallevick, Rossana Vanni.
      PO Box 1410, Bristol, BS99 3JP
      Tel: 0117 373 0346
      evnuk@...

      CHAPTER 7 - http://www.oneworld.org/tlio/chapter7
      The UK's Rural Sustainable Settlement Campaign
      The Potato Store, Flaxdrayton Farm, South Petherton, Somerset, TA13
      chapter7@...
      01460 249204

      LOW-IMPACT NEWS - http://www.lowimpactnews.org.uk
      The bi-monthly magazine for and about UK ecovillages
      Subscription: £5 unwaged - £10 low paid - £15 reasonable job/institution -
      per year
      Cheque payable to Low Impact News, Middlewood, Roeburndale, Lancaster, LA2
      8QX, UK
      01324 222479

      WWOOF - http://www.wwoof.org/wuk0.html
      Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms - do some work and stay for free
      PO Box 2675, Lewes, Sussex, BN7 1RB
      fran@...

      DIGGERS AND DREAMERS - http://www.diggersanddreamers.org.uk
      Diggers & Dreamers, a UK guide to communal living for more than 10 years
      c/o Edge of Time Ltd, BCM Edge, London, WC1N 3XX, UK
      info@...
      07000 780536

      PERMACULTURE ASSOCIATION UK - http://www.permaculture.org.uk
      Supports individuals, projects and groups working with permaculture in Britain
      Third Floor Studios, 6 Carr Mills, 322 Meanwood Road, Leeds, West
      Yorkshire, LS7 2HY
      office@...
      Tel/Fax: 07041 390170 and 0113 262 1718

      ECO-LOGIC BOOKS - http://www.eco-logicbooks.com
      Practical solutions to environmental problems
      Mulberry House, 19 Maple Grove, Bath, BA2 3AF
      books@...
      01225 484472

      GROUNDSWELL - http://www.groundswell.org.uk
      Promoting and developing self-help initiatives with the homeless

      U.K. COHOUSING NETWORK - http://www.cohousing.co.uk/
      Sharing expertise and experience amongst the U.K. cohousing groups.

      You can make messages to evnuk private by downloading our PGP public key:
      http://www.ecovillages.org/uk/network/EcovillageNetwork.asc
      Download free & easy to use PGP encryption at http://www.pgpi.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • burns_curtis
      ... Great news!!! New homes for the many homeless or people living in substandand housing. ... A flood plain? Very silly ... Concrete Valley ?? Emotive
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In diggers350@y..., "Steve Melia" <steve@s...> (by way of
        Ecovillage Network UK <evnuk@g...>) wrote:

        > Two councils in Devon have just
        > submitted plans for a new town

        Great news!!! New homes for the many homeless or people living in
        substandand housing.

        > on a greenfield flood plain

        A flood plain? Very silly

        > and a Concrete Valley of ribbon development
        > 3 miles long and 1 mile wide.

        "Concrete Valley"?? Emotive propaganda words used by fake green
        movements, who are fronts for large landowners. Others are:

        - "Urban Sprawl". In occupying only 7.5% of the land mass there is
        no sprawl anywhere in the UK.
        - Another is "Concreting over the countryside". Similar to the one
        you gave.

        You make people's homes sound like an aircraft runway.

        Some of the so-called green movements are not so well meaning. The
        Countryside Alliance is funded by the Duke of Westminster and the
        Duke of Argyle - two very large and very rich landowners. Their aims
        are dubious - like primarily keeping their masses of acres and people
        rammed into only 7.5% of the land mass.

        The so-called environmental groups, from the Countryside Alliance at
        one end to Friends of The Earth at the other, come in for some sharp
        criticism by Kevin Cahill in his book "Who Owns Britain". He accuses
        them as acting as a front for the large landowners maintaining the
        status quo keeping urbanites out of the countryside and herding them
        into 7.5% of the land mass. Media personality Jonathan Porrit, son
        of 1st Baron Porrit, of Friends of The Earth comes in for some sharp
        criticism.

        We need more homes, not more greenbelt sprawl. In 2001 52,000 new
        homes were built in the Irish Republic which has a population of 3.4
        million. The UK, with a population of 60 million managed a mere
        170,000. The House Builders Federation indicated that highly
        restrictive planning laws curtail much needed housebuilding in the UK.

        There are currently three million people in the UK living in 1.5
        million homes officially classified as unfit, and this situation is
        unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future. 2.5 million homes
        suffer from severe damp, and the cost of remedying these conditions
        is estimated between 46 and 70 billion pounds.

        House conditions were found to contribute to "chronic chest disease",
        Hypothermia and digestive condition.

        The above was some of the findings of a report commissioned by the
        Joseph Rowntree Organisation published by the National Housing Forum
        in 1996. The situation has changed little since then.

        > Please copy this message to everyone
        > you know who cares about the
        > countryside.

        I do care about the countryside and I will not copy this misguided
        NIMBYist post to anyone. The best way of preserving it, is not to
        leave it to large landowners and landscape rapists and poisoners, is
        to put people back in the countryside, instead of herding 60 million
        of them into 7.5% of the land mass.

        Houses, especially highly insulated eco houses, are inert. Devon has
        tons of land. Tons of it. Enough to build a city of 1 million and
        still not make an impact on the environment.
      • msbrown@cwcom.net
        Your message was approved by me (list moderator) because I thought your argument was worth being shared. You make some interesting points, and good to hear the
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Your message was approved by me (list moderator) because I thought your
          argument was worth being shared. You make some interesting points, and good to
          hear the statsitics and learn of your quotes. However, I disagree with you.

          Since you obviously take the line of the Housebuilders Federation, would you
          consider that the main motivation in their argument for large scale housing
          projects is profit maximasation, and not fulfilling the opening up the vast
          swathes of our green and pleasant land to live and work in. But probably what
          is the biggest failure in your argument is your non-recognition ofr the fact
          thatthese type of large scale developments will only further distort the
          housing market against the interests of those most in need (i.e. those for whom
          the cost of owning their own home is already beyond their reach). Preferential
          building of free-market homes for sale always disadvantages the poor.

          Not only that, what we need in environmental criteria so that development in
          the countryside 9for which, yes, there is an obvious need) should be subject to
          strict environmental conditions, such as The land is Ours' 15 Criteria for
          Sustainable development.

          Yours most forcefully,

          Mark.S.Brown (TLIO)


          Quoting burns_curtis <john.burns-curtis@...>:

          > --- In diggers350@y..., "Steve Melia" <steve@s...> (by way of
          > Ecovillage Network UK <evnuk@g...>) wrote:
          >
          > > Two councils in Devon have just
          > > submitted plans for a new town
          >
          > Great news!!! New homes for the many homeless or people living in
          > substandand housing.
          >
          > > on a greenfield flood plain
          >
          > A flood plain? Very silly
          >
          > > and a Concrete Valley of ribbon development
          > > 3 miles long and 1 mile wide.
          >
          > "Concrete Valley"?? Emotive propaganda words used by fake green
          > movements, who are fronts for large landowners. Others are:
          >
          > - "Urban Sprawl". In occupying only 7.5% of the land mass there is
          > no sprawl anywhere in the UK.
          > - Another is "Concreting over the countryside". Similar to the one
          > you gave.
          >
          > You make people's homes sound like an aircraft runway.
          >
          > Some of the so-called green movements are not so well meaning. The
          > Countryside Alliance is funded by the Duke of Westminster and the
          > Duke of Argyle - two very large and very rich landowners. Their aims
          > are dubious - like primarily keeping their masses of acres and people
          > rammed into only 7.5% of the land mass.
          >
          > The so-called environmental groups, from the Countryside Alliance at
          > one end to Friends of The Earth at the other, come in for some sharp
          > criticism by Kevin Cahill in his book "Who Owns Britain". He accuses
          > them as acting as a front for the large landowners maintaining the
          > status quo keeping urbanites out of the countryside and herding them
          > into 7.5% of the land mass. Media personality Jonathan Porrit, son
          > of 1st Baron Porrit, of Friends of The Earth comes in for some sharp
          > criticism.
          >
          > We need more homes, not more greenbelt sprawl. In 2001 52,000 new
          > homes were built in the Irish Republic which has a population of 3.4
          > million. The UK, with a population of 60 million managed a mere
          > 170,000. The House Builders Federation indicated that highly
          > restrictive planning laws curtail much needed housebuilding in the UK.
          >
          > There are currently three million people in the UK living in 1.5
          > million homes officially classified as unfit, and this situation is
          > unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future. 2.5 million homes
          > suffer from severe damp, and the cost of remedying these conditions
          > is estimated between 46 and 70 billion pounds.
          >
          > House conditions were found to contribute to "chronic chest disease",
          > Hypothermia and digestive condition.
          >
          > The above was some of the findings of a report commissioned by the
          > Joseph Rowntree Organisation published by the National Housing Forum
          > in 1996. The situation has changed little since then.
          >
          > > Please copy this message to everyone
          > > you know who cares about the
          > > countryside.
          >
          > I do care about the countryside and I will not copy this misguided
          > NIMBYist post to anyone. The best way of preserving it, is not to
          > leave it to large landowners and landscape rapists and poisoners, is
          > to put people back in the countryside, instead of herding 60 million
          > of them into 7.5% of the land mass.
          >
          > Houses, especially highly insulated eco houses, are inert. Devon has
          > tons of land. Tons of it. Enough to build a city of 1 million and
          > still not make an impact on the environment.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • burns_curtis
          ... I obviously do not. Do not assume!!!! I am not in favour of a system that lines the pockets of large landowners and large developers. Most of the land
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 7, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > Your message was approved by me (list moderator)
            > because I thought your argument was worth being
            > shared. You make some interesting
            > points, and good to hear the statsitics and learn
            > of your quotes. However, I disagree with you.
            >
            > Since you obviously take the line of the
            > Housebuilders Federation,

            I obviously do not. Do not assume!!!! I am not in favour of a
            system that lines the pockets of large landowners and large
            developers. Most of the land earmarked for the massive construction
            programme on the way is owned by large landowners with land not even
            in the Land Registry. Large developers have reserved it. Rigged!!!

            Nevertheless these developer organisations occasionally do come up
            with some good research figures.

            > would you consider that the main
            > motivation in their argument for large
            > scale housing projects is profit maximasation,
            > and not fulfilling the opening up the vast
            > swathes of our green and pleasant land to
            > live and work in.

            Of course it is. You said "opening up the vast swathes of our green
            and pleasant land to live and work in." This should be done, however
            in a way that spreads the profit around.

            The selfbuild market in the UK is about a pathetic 10% of all houses
            built. Selfbuld is a misnomer as it could mean buying a plot and
            having a company design and build a house for you, or a man building
            the house himself. The UK figures are way below:

            - Ireland (~70%),
            - Germany (-40%),
            - France (~40%),
            - USA (~30%),
            - Austria (~70%).
            - etc.

            This market is ripe for expansion to the good of all, instead of
            being in the hands of large land owners/developers. They need cheap
            available land to build on, instead we subsidise landowners to keep
            land idle.

            Friends of mine from Australia were staying over Xmas and said that
            it is normal in Auss to find and buy your own plot and have a
            smallish company build your house to your design. Large developers
            are not the norm there.

            House development must be taken out of the large landowners who sell
            land not in the Land Registry to very large developers. Kevin Cahill
            in his book "Who Owns Briatin" that this market is rigged. Selfbuild
            is the only way forwards in the medium to long term, however cheap
            land must be available to them by peeling back the 1947 T&C planning
            act, and re-distributing land/inroducing LVT.

            > But probably what is the biggest failure
            > in your argument is your non-recognition
            > ofr the fact that hese type of large scale
            > developments will only further distort the
            > housing market against the interests of
            > those most in need (i.e. those for whom
            > the cost of owning their own home is
            > already beyond their reach).

            See above. There is nothing wrong with large scale developments as
            long as it is done properly. We know much more about town planning
            now. Milton Keynes is a huge success (who reserve specific selfbuild
            plots), so is Cambourn. Milton Keynes is just full of lakes and
            parks and greenery, with a longer shoreline than Jersey. It can be
            done and it has been.

            The problem is that only the big boys get a look in, in large
            developments.

            > Preferential building of free-market
            > homes for sale always disadvantages the poor.

            What disadvantages the poor is the current Medieval system of 70% of
            the UK land being owned by 1% of the population, compounded by a
            Stalinist planning system that herds 60 million of us into only 7.5%
            of the land mass.

            I don't need to spell out that we need:

            1. Re-distribute land or introduce LVT if it results in land being
            re-distributed.

            2. Peel back the T&C planning act, freeing people from the confined
            spaces we are herded in to.

            3. Ensure that the selfbuld market is the predominant one, as it is
            many other countries.

            > Not only that, what we need in environmental
            > criteria so that development in the countryside
            > (for which, yes, there is an obvious need) should
            > be subject to strict environmental conditions,
            > such as The land is Ours' 15 Criteria for
            > Sustainable development.

            Give strict environmental conditions, that is fine.
            Enforce strict construction detailing as superinsulation with passive
            solar incorporated into the design, as they are currently doing in
            Germany with their Passiv Solar building regs, rumoured to be adopted
            by the EU. That is fine.
            No problems at all.

            However do not restrict people from freely building where they want
            to. This keeping people out of the countryside in this misguided
            belief that it will save it, has gone way too far to the point it is
            ridiculous. Large landowners, who want to hold on to their masses of
            acres their families have owned for many 100s of years, are using
            this greeny front to their own advantage to great effect. Ever
            thought you may be inadvertently be fighting their corner for them?

            Common sense, social justice and freedom have to prevail.

            Tony Blair came to power saying he was concentrating
            on "constitutional matters". So far he has kicked out of the House
            of Lords the parasite hereditary peers - the total wealth of the 66
            hereditary ejected Lords, who are predominantly large landowners
            owning the equivalent of 4.5 average sized counties, is a whopping
            £16 billion. Blair severed a 800 years landowning link with high
            level power.

            Next must be the land issue. There is a very watered down version of
            land re-distribution in Scotland to come, so next must be the whole
            of the UK in a full blown implementation. Oh how I wish this for all
            and sundry. Alas the government is appeasing the greeny mob having
            instructed further higher densities of home building. We are on each
            others laps as it is, in tiny plots with matchbox gardens in tiny
            homes.

            I re-iterate. The only way to save the countryside is put people back
            it, not keep them out of it. Put people first.

            Most Forcefully Yours
          • Kate Oliver
            Who exactly is saying that Milton Keynes is a huge success ? ... From: burns_curtis To: Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 7, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Who exactly is saying that Milton Keynes is a huge success'?

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "burns_curtis" <john.burns-curtis@...>
              To: <>
              Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:31 PM
              Subject: [diggers350] Re: HELP SAVE DEVON'S COUNTRYSIDE (It is already
              saved)


              > Your message was approved by me (list moderator)
              > because I thought your argument was worth being
              > shared. You make some interesting
              > points, and good to hear the statsitics and learn
              > of your quotes. However, I disagree with you.
              >
              > Since you obviously take the line of the
              > Housebuilders Federation,

              I obviously do not. Do not assume!!!! I am not in favour of a
              system that lines the pockets of large landowners and large
              developers. Most of the land earmarked for the massive construction
              programme on the way is owned by large landowners with land not even
              in the Land Registry. Large developers have reserved it. Rigged!!!

              Nevertheless these developer organisations occasionally do come up
              with some good research figures.

              > would you consider that the main
              > motivation in their argument for large
              > scale housing projects is profit maximasation,
              > and not fulfilling the opening up the vast
              > swathes of our green and pleasant land to
              > live and work in.

              Of course it is. You said "opening up the vast swathes of our green
              and pleasant land to live and work in." This should be done, however
              in a way that spreads the profit around.

              The selfbuild market in the UK is about a pathetic 10% of all houses
              built. Selfbuld is a misnomer as it could mean buying a plot and
              having a company design and build a house for you, or a man building
              the house himself. The UK figures are way below:

              - Ireland (~70%),
              - Germany (-40%),
              - France (~40%),
              - USA (~30%),
              - Austria (~70%).
              - etc.

              This market is ripe for expansion to the good of all, instead of
              being in the hands of large land owners/developers. They need cheap
              available land to build on, instead we subsidise landowners to keep
              land idle.

              Friends of mine from Australia were staying over Xmas and said that
              it is normal in Auss to find and buy your own plot and have a
              smallish company build your house to your design. Large developers
              are not the norm there.

              House development must be taken out of the large landowners who sell
              land not in the Land Registry to very large developers. Kevin Cahill
              in his book "Who Owns Briatin" that this market is rigged. Selfbuild
              is the only way forwards in the medium to long term, however cheap
              land must be available to them by peeling back the 1947 T&C planning
              act, and re-distributing land/inroducing LVT.

              > But probably what is the biggest failure
              > in your argument is your non-recognition
              > ofr the fact that hese type of large scale
              > developments will only further distort the
              > housing market against the interests of
              > those most in need (i.e. those for whom
              > the cost of owning their own home is
              > already beyond their reach).

              See above. There is nothing wrong with large scale developments as
              long as it is done properly. We know much more about town planning
              now. Milton Keynes is a huge success (who reserve specific selfbuild
              plots), so is Cambourn. Milton Keynes is just full of lakes and
              parks and greenery, with a longer shoreline than Jersey. It can be
              done and it has been.

              The problem is that only the big boys get a look in, in large
              developments.

              > Preferential building of free-market
              > homes for sale always disadvantages the poor.

              What disadvantages the poor is the current Medieval system of 70% of
              the UK land being owned by 1% of the population, compounded by a
              Stalinist planning system that herds 60 million of us into only 7.5%
              of the land mass.

              I don't need to spell out that we need:

              1. Re-distribute land or introduce LVT if it results in land being
              re-distributed.

              2. Peel back the T&C planning act, freeing people from the confined
              spaces we are herded in to.

              3. Ensure that the selfbuld market is the predominant one, as it is
              many other countries.

              > Not only that, what we need in environmental
              > criteria so that development in the countryside
              > (for which, yes, there is an obvious need) should
              > be subject to strict environmental conditions,
              > such as The land is Ours' 15 Criteria for
              > Sustainable development.

              Give strict environmental conditions, that is fine.
              Enforce strict construction detailing as superinsulation with passive
              solar incorporated into the design, as they are currently doing in
              Germany with their Passiv Solar building regs, rumoured to be adopted
              by the EU. That is fine.
              No problems at all.

              However do not restrict people from freely building where they want
              to. This keeping people out of the countryside in this misguided
              belief that it will save it, has gone way too far to the point it is
              ridiculous. Large landowners, who want to hold on to their masses of
              acres their families have owned for many 100s of years, are using
              this greeny front to their own advantage to great effect. Ever
              thought you may be inadvertently be fighting their corner for them?

              Common sense, social justice and freedom have to prevail.

              Tony Blair came to power saying he was concentrating
              on "constitutional matters". So far he has kicked out of the House
              of Lords the parasite hereditary peers - the total wealth of the 66
              hereditary ejected Lords, who are predominantly large landowners
              owning the equivalent of 4.5 average sized counties, is a whopping
              £16 billion. Blair severed a 800 years landowning link with high
              level power.

              Next must be the land issue. There is a very watered down version of
              land re-distribution in Scotland to come, so next must be the whole
              of the UK in a full blown implementation. Oh how I wish this for all
              and sundry. Alas the government is appeasing the greeny mob having
              instructed further higher densities of home building. We are on each
              others laps as it is, in tiny plots with matchbox gardens in tiny
              homes.

              I re-iterate. The only way to save the countryside is put people back
              it, not keep them out of it. Put people first.

              Most Forcefully Yours






              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.