Sites in Baldwins Lane, Mill End, Woodside Road and Fairways Farm lose Green Belt status in Three Rivers

Watford Observer: The horse field in Baldwins Lane, Croxley Green. The horse field in Baldwins Lane, Croxley Green.

Politicians have unanimously agreed a government inspector’s recommendation to strip Three Rivers sites of their Green Belt status to make way for housing and schools.

At an executive meeting yesterday (Monday), councillors approved the recommendation to alter the area’s local plan, which will mean that five sites in the district will no longer be protected under Green Belt status.

A horse field in Baldwins Lane, Croxley Green, and land between Maple Cross and Mill End have had their Green Belt status taken away to make way for schools.

Fields off Woodside Road, in Leavesden, have been allocated to build a Primary School, as well as 100 houses.

And Fairways Farm, off Bucknalls Lane, in Garston, and Killingdown Farm, off Little Green Lane, Croxley Green, have both had their Green Belt status stripped to make way for hundreds of houses.

Click on the arrows to view location

Councillor Martin Trevett, environment portfolio holder, told the committee that they "don’t have a leg to stand on" in regards to rejecting the government’s recommendations, because, if they refused these sites for development, they would have to find others in the district to accommodate homes and schools.

The Liberal Democrat representative for Chorleywood West, said: "We don’t have to accept these sites but we have got to find other sites. Now, we have trekked through every single site in the district and I don’t know where we would find other sites in the district anyway.

"A developer knowing that an inspector thought these would be quite good sites would be in a very strong position to put in an application and we would be in a very weak position."

He added: "He (the inspector) has actually said these are good sites so we don’t have a leg to stand on in my view."

In reports submitted to the council, officers stated: "In the context of the Inspector’s letter of November 28, 2013 there is no reason to withdraw or choose not to propose the modifications required.

"To do so would leave the council without an up to date Development Plan and place it at risk of being unable to successfully defend the refusal of what it considers to be inappropriate development."

Liberal Democrat councillor, Keith Williams, said: "It would appear that companies with vested interests have gone behind the back of local residents and secured an agreement with the local inspector to remove the Greenbelt status.

"This decision flies in the face of democracy and it’s with a heavy heart that I will be voting for this recommendation."

Leader of the council, Ann Shaw, referred to the inspector’s recommendation as "as form of blackmail".

Council documents state that: "The Inspector has identified the following sites that should be allocated and which, he determines, will ‘direct more development to sustainable locations and which would allow revisions to the Green Belt boundary which are effectively minor’."

Councillor Stephen Cox, leader of the district’s Labour group, said the alternative to agreeing to these sites would make it "open season" across the district.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

TRT says...

As opposed to the vast tracts of brownfield that could legitimately be redeveloped, but at a cost.
As opposed to the vast tracts of brownfield that could legitimately be redeveloped, but at a cost. TRT

12:53pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Sara says...

Which vast tracts of brownfield land?
Which vast tracts of brownfield land? Sara

1:03pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

The green belt is not safe in the hands of any party except UKIP.

Here's the proof.
The green belt is not safe in the hands of any party except UKIP. Here's the proof. Phil Cox (UKIP)

1:03pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Green Gal says...

"To do so would leave the council without an up to date Development Plan and place it at risk of being unable to successfully defend the refusal of what it considers to be inappropriate development."

Surely if these greenbelt sites stayed as greenbelt they would be protected against inappropriate development anyway! The Inspector has only recommended removing the greenbelt status so that there are no obsicles when it comes to getting planning permission to build. National Planning Policy dictates that in order to develop on greenbelt land, there must be 'very special circumstances'. Stripping the greenbelt status removes this barrier making it easy to get planning permission to develop land. It also means that there will not be a public enquiry in to whether schoold/houses are built on these sites so it's basically a 'done deal'.

It should not be this easy to destroy our greenbelt and completely contardicts all that Three Rivers District Council say they stand for.

What was the point of a public consultation when the public have been completely ignored?

In 30 years time when Three Rivers decide that they no longer need these proposed schools, they will close them down then sell the land to build housing on- Win win for the Council!!
"To do so would leave the council without an up to date Development Plan and place it at risk of being unable to successfully defend the refusal of what it considers to be inappropriate development." Surely if these greenbelt sites stayed as greenbelt they would be protected against inappropriate development anyway! The Inspector has only recommended removing the greenbelt status so that there are no obsicles when it comes to getting planning permission to build. National Planning Policy dictates that in order to develop on greenbelt land, there must be 'very special circumstances'. Stripping the greenbelt status removes this barrier making it easy to get planning permission to develop land. It also means that there will not be a public enquiry in to whether schoold/houses are built on these sites so it's basically a 'done deal'. It should not be this easy to destroy our greenbelt and completely contardicts all that Three Rivers District Council say they stand for. What was the point of a public consultation when the public have been completely ignored? In 30 years time when Three Rivers decide that they no longer need these proposed schools, they will close them down then sell the land to build housing on- Win win for the Council!! Green Gal

1:08pm Tue 28 Jan 14

TRT says...

Sara wrote:
Which vast tracts of brownfield land?
Oooohhh. The Scammell site springs to mind immediately. Then there's the old gas-o-meter on Lower High Street, large parts of Hatfield that were used by the military during the war... but it costs to decontaminate that land to a level suitable for housing use.
I'll agree that brownfield isn't perfect, for instance it's often bordering existing roads which can't take the extra traffic, but that's no excuse to rip up greenbelt land which was put there for a reason.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: Which vast tracts of brownfield land?[/p][/quote]Oooohhh. The Scammell site springs to mind immediately. Then there's the old gas-o-meter on Lower High Street, large parts of Hatfield that were used by the military during the war... but it costs to decontaminate that land to a level suitable for housing use. I'll agree that brownfield isn't perfect, for instance it's often bordering existing roads which can't take the extra traffic, but that's no excuse to rip up greenbelt land which was put there for a reason. TRT

1:13pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them.

That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for.

UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC.

I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties.
It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them. That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for. UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC. I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties. Phil Cox (UKIP)

1:20pm Tue 28 Jan 14

garston tony says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them. That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for. UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC. I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties.
It oftens seems the only thing UKIP is committed to is saying whatever they think will get them votes.

You said in your first post that greenbelt land was only safe in UKIP hands and then stated 'here is the proof'. What proof, where is it please?

Words are easy but I doubt UKIP are any different to any other political party and should they get into power the reality of life will quickly get in the way of.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them. That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for. UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC. I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties.[/p][/quote]It oftens seems the only thing UKIP is committed to is saying whatever they think will get them votes. You said in your first post that greenbelt land was only safe in UKIP hands and then stated 'here is the proof'. What proof, where is it please? Words are easy but I doubt UKIP are any different to any other political party and should they get into power the reality of life will quickly get in the way of. garston tony

1:23pm Tue 28 Jan 14

garston tony says...

What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors.

As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it
What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it garston tony

1:28pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Sara says...

The green Belt sites identified are not in Three Rivers. Each council has to find its own sites.

@greengal if the council ignores the Inspector's comments, not only does the whole District be cone up for grabs, but also developers can use the Inspector's report as very strong evidence for the development of the sites he supported.

Finally it it the County Council that says where schools are and are not needed, not Three Rivers.
The green Belt sites identified are not in Three Rivers. Each council has to find its own sites. @greengal if the council ignores the Inspector's comments, not only does the whole District be cone up for grabs, but also developers can use the Inspector's report as very strong evidence for the development of the sites he supported. Finally it it the County Council that says where schools are and are not needed, not Three Rivers. Sara

1:35pm Tue 28 Jan 14

LSC says...

garston tony wrote:
What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors.

As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it
I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it.
Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above.
Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it[/p][/quote]I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing. LSC

1:35pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them. That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for. UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC. I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties.
It oftens seems the only thing UKIP is committed to is saying whatever they think will get them votes. You said in your first post that greenbelt land was only safe in UKIP hands and then stated 'here is the proof'. What proof, where is it please? Words are easy but I doubt UKIP are any different to any other political party and should they get into power the reality of life will quickly get in the way of.
Tony,

3 things.

1. It is on our website as a UKIP policy.
2. At local level we are not "whipped" like the other parties, so we can do what we think is best for the area and people, not what is best for the party.
3. Where 5% of voters ask for a referendum on a local issue (within 3 month timeframe) we would hold a referendum, the result of which would be binding on us to action.

I hope that satisfies you. I know you are sceptic of politicians and UKIP, but really what I say is 100% true. UKIP wants what we all want, a responsive and sensible council, not what we currently have, a council with some hidden political agenda to build on the green belt.

We have a public meeting on 30th at Watford Town and Country Club (7:15 pm) - come along and size us up, ask what you like, you will only get honest answers, not politicians answers.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them. That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for. UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC. I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties.[/p][/quote]It oftens seems the only thing UKIP is committed to is saying whatever they think will get them votes. You said in your first post that greenbelt land was only safe in UKIP hands and then stated 'here is the proof'. What proof, where is it please? Words are easy but I doubt UKIP are any different to any other political party and should they get into power the reality of life will quickly get in the way of.[/p][/quote]Tony, 3 things. 1. It is on our website as a UKIP policy. 2. At local level we are not "whipped" like the other parties, so we can do what we think is best for the area and people, not what is best for the party. 3. Where 5% of voters ask for a referendum on a local issue (within 3 month timeframe) we would hold a referendum, the result of which would be binding on us to action. I hope that satisfies you. I know you are sceptic of politicians and UKIP, but really what I say is 100% true. UKIP wants what we all want, a responsive and sensible council, not what we currently have, a council with some hidden political agenda to build on the green belt. We have a public meeting on 30th at Watford Town and Country Club (7:15 pm) - come along and size us up, ask what you like, you will only get honest answers, not politicians answers. Phil Cox (UKIP)

1:44pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it
I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.
We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP.

The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it.

I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria.

It shows we are serious about local democracy.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it[/p][/quote]I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.[/p][/quote]We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP. The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it. I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria. It shows we are serious about local democracy. Phil Cox (UKIP)

1:54pm Tue 28 Jan 14

LSC says...

That is all well and good Phil, but from how the story reads it would have made little difference if the Council had been completely made up of UKIP members. The 'inspector' called the shots.
We don't even know if this person was elected, or more likely a civil servant who we couldn't get rid of if we wanted to.
People are just fed up with it. Local opposition means nothing these days.
That is all well and good Phil, but from how the story reads it would have made little difference if the Council had been completely made up of UKIP members. The 'inspector' called the shots. We don't even know if this person was elected, or more likely a civil servant who we couldn't get rid of if we wanted to. People are just fed up with it. Local opposition means nothing these days. LSC

2:06pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

LSC wrote:
That is all well and good Phil, but from how the story reads it would have made little difference if the Council had been completely made up of UKIP members. The 'inspector' called the shots. We don't even know if this person was elected, or more likely a civil servant who we couldn't get rid of if we wanted to. People are just fed up with it. Local opposition means nothing these days.
LSC, remember the story is coming from those who have given up, so it is undoubtedly in their interests to say "no point fighting, we would never win". They might be right, but how would they ever know if they don't at least try? Or maybe they want this development? Certainly Dotty wanted to concrete over Farm Terrace, no doubt about that, even though she said the opposite at the time.

Do you know, I once organised a campaign against the local council. So many people told me we stood no chance but in the end I gathered petitions, met planners, met Dotty and packed out public meetings. The council backed down under people power and a better outcome was achieved.

It's rare, that's true, but it can happen, the people can win, BUT only if people fight back. I'm a fighter and I'm in UKIP. At least we would put up resistance. The current crop seem to just give up without a fight, so why elect them?

Your choice when it comes to voting, LSC - Those who would fight and may win, or those who just give up at the first hurdle. I don't imagine a UKIP council giving up just like that.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: That is all well and good Phil, but from how the story reads it would have made little difference if the Council had been completely made up of UKIP members. The 'inspector' called the shots. We don't even know if this person was elected, or more likely a civil servant who we couldn't get rid of if we wanted to. People are just fed up with it. Local opposition means nothing these days.[/p][/quote]LSC, remember the story is coming from those who have given up, so it is undoubtedly in their interests to say "no point fighting, we would never win". They might be right, but how would they ever know if they don't at least try? Or maybe they want this development? Certainly Dotty wanted to concrete over Farm Terrace, no doubt about that, even though she said the opposite at the time. Do you know, I once organised a campaign against the local council. So many people told me we stood no chance but in the end I gathered petitions, met planners, met Dotty and packed out public meetings. The council backed down under people power and a better outcome was achieved. It's rare, that's true, but it can happen, the people can win, BUT only if people fight back. I'm a fighter and I'm in UKIP. At least we would put up resistance. The current crop seem to just give up without a fight, so why elect them? Your choice when it comes to voting, LSC - Those who would fight and may win, or those who just give up at the first hurdle. I don't imagine a UKIP council giving up just like that. Phil Cox (UKIP)

2:20pm Tue 28 Jan 14

LSC says...

I'm afraid the fight has rather gone out of me Phil. Too many defeats, and a recent incident where I made a stand on a local issue and someone tried to get me fired from my job for it.
That's the world we live in today.
There are some good people out there, in all parties, but they are getting fewer and it is getting harder to tell who they are.
I respect people like yourself and Sara who come on places like this and stand up to be counted.
But the system is fundamentally flawed. The 'old boy network', for want of a better phrase, of like minded people with their own interests at heart, is simply too powerful as I personally learned, nearly to my cost.
I'm afraid the fight has rather gone out of me Phil. Too many defeats, and a recent incident where I made a stand on a local issue and someone tried to get me fired from my job for it. That's the world we live in today. There are some good people out there, in all parties, but they are getting fewer and it is getting harder to tell who they are. I respect people like yourself and Sara who come on places like this and stand up to be counted. But the system is fundamentally flawed. The 'old boy network', for want of a better phrase, of like minded people with their own interests at heart, is simply too powerful as I personally learned, nearly to my cost. LSC

2:22pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Mad_Hat says...

So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in.
So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in. Mad_Hat

2:53pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

LSC wrote:
I'm afraid the fight has rather gone out of me Phil. Too many defeats, and a recent incident where I made a stand on a local issue and someone tried to get me fired from my job for it. That's the world we live in today. There are some good people out there, in all parties, but they are getting fewer and it is getting harder to tell who they are. I respect people like yourself and Sara who come on places like this and stand up to be counted. But the system is fundamentally flawed. The 'old boy network', for want of a better phrase, of like minded people with their own interests at heart, is simply too powerful as I personally learned, nearly to my cost.
I'm really sorry to hear that LSC, but I do understand. I hope you don't give up and that you come back fighting, but I do understand and I'm not surprised at all that you were one of the few who dare to put their head above the parapet and stand up for what you believe in.

There are too few like you and too many like them. This country needs more people like you and none like them.

And the system, as you say, is fundamentally flawed, with the potential for corruption and special interest groups pressuring council or even standing for council. Then there are party political pressures as well. There are a lot of obstacles to good governance.

UKIP wants to shake this up and give people faith in their local councils and government again. It's an uphill struggle but we have got good people who are full of fight, I think we'll get there in the end.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm afraid the fight has rather gone out of me Phil. Too many defeats, and a recent incident where I made a stand on a local issue and someone tried to get me fired from my job for it. That's the world we live in today. There are some good people out there, in all parties, but they are getting fewer and it is getting harder to tell who they are. I respect people like yourself and Sara who come on places like this and stand up to be counted. But the system is fundamentally flawed. The 'old boy network', for want of a better phrase, of like minded people with their own interests at heart, is simply too powerful as I personally learned, nearly to my cost.[/p][/quote]I'm really sorry to hear that LSC, but I do understand. I hope you don't give up and that you come back fighting, but I do understand and I'm not surprised at all that you were one of the few who dare to put their head above the parapet and stand up for what you believe in. There are too few like you and too many like them. This country needs more people like you and none like them. And the system, as you say, is fundamentally flawed, with the potential for corruption and special interest groups pressuring council or even standing for council. Then there are party political pressures as well. There are a lot of obstacles to good governance. UKIP wants to shake this up and give people faith in their local councils and government again. It's an uphill struggle but we have got good people who are full of fight, I think we'll get there in the end. Phil Cox (UKIP)

3:04pm Tue 28 Jan 14

garston tony says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them. That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for. UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC. I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties.
It oftens seems the only thing UKIP is committed to is saying whatever they think will get them votes. You said in your first post that greenbelt land was only safe in UKIP hands and then stated 'here is the proof'. What proof, where is it please? Words are easy but I doubt UKIP are any different to any other political party and should they get into power the reality of life will quickly get in the way of.
Tony, 3 things. 1. It is on our website as a UKIP policy. 2. At local level we are not "whipped" like the other parties, so we can do what we think is best for the area and people, not what is best for the party. 3. Where 5% of voters ask for a referendum on a local issue (within 3 month timeframe) we would hold a referendum, the result of which would be binding on us to action. I hope that satisfies you. I know you are sceptic of politicians and UKIP, but really what I say is 100% true. UKIP wants what we all want, a responsive and sensible council, not what we currently have, a council with some hidden political agenda to build on the green belt. We have a public meeting on 30th at Watford Town and Country Club (7:15 pm) - come along and size us up, ask what you like, you will only get honest answers, not politicians answers.
Considering the problem Farrage had the other day with UKIP manifesto/policy probably best not to bring it up at the moment. Were you one of the ones that wanted compulsory uniforms for taxi drivers or maybe the policy is one of those that is unauthorised which apparently isnt unknow on the UKIP website, or maybe its made up by one of the 'walter mitty' types that Farrage was on about just today?

I like Farrage, he's good value for money but the past fews days have just highlighted what a shambles the UKIP party has been and still is to a certain extent.

Oh, and really you'd have a referendum if only 5% of the population asked for it on local issues? Thats a pretty low bar and means UKIP would be at the mercy of minority groups
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: It reminds me of when the Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill (LibDem) said she wished there was a way of saving Farm Terrace allotments from the developers that she had set on them. That was completely insincere too. Maybe it gave TRDC the idea of concreting over the green belt. Dotty's got a lot to answer for. UKIP is committed to preserving the Green Belt. UKIP is committed to doing what is best for the residents of TRDC. I'm not sure the same could be said of any of the other parties.[/p][/quote]It oftens seems the only thing UKIP is committed to is saying whatever they think will get them votes. You said in your first post that greenbelt land was only safe in UKIP hands and then stated 'here is the proof'. What proof, where is it please? Words are easy but I doubt UKIP are any different to any other political party and should they get into power the reality of life will quickly get in the way of.[/p][/quote]Tony, 3 things. 1. It is on our website as a UKIP policy. 2. At local level we are not "whipped" like the other parties, so we can do what we think is best for the area and people, not what is best for the party. 3. Where 5% of voters ask for a referendum on a local issue (within 3 month timeframe) we would hold a referendum, the result of which would be binding on us to action. I hope that satisfies you. I know you are sceptic of politicians and UKIP, but really what I say is 100% true. UKIP wants what we all want, a responsive and sensible council, not what we currently have, a council with some hidden political agenda to build on the green belt. We have a public meeting on 30th at Watford Town and Country Club (7:15 pm) - come along and size us up, ask what you like, you will only get honest answers, not politicians answers.[/p][/quote]Considering the problem Farrage had the other day with UKIP manifesto/policy probably best not to bring it up at the moment. Were you one of the ones that wanted compulsory uniforms for taxi drivers or maybe the policy is one of those that is unauthorised which apparently isnt unknow on the UKIP website, or maybe its made up by one of the 'walter mitty' types that Farrage was on about just today? I like Farrage, he's good value for money but the past fews days have just highlighted what a shambles the UKIP party has been and still is to a certain extent. Oh, and really you'd have a referendum if only 5% of the population asked for it on local issues? Thats a pretty low bar and means UKIP would be at the mercy of minority groups garston tony

3:06pm Tue 28 Jan 14

garston tony says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it
I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.
We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP. The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it. I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria. It shows we are serious about local democracy.
So what is UKIP's great idea to solve the problem of the ever increasing pressure to find land to build on?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it[/p][/quote]I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.[/p][/quote]We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP. The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it. I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria. It shows we are serious about local democracy.[/p][/quote]So what is UKIP's great idea to solve the problem of the ever increasing pressure to find land to build on? garston tony

3:25pm Tue 28 Jan 14

TRT says...

garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it
I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.
We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP. The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it. I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria. It shows we are serious about local democracy.
So what is UKIP's great idea to solve the problem of the ever increasing pressure to find land to build on?
*tongue in cheek mode*
Government policy over the years has been extremely successful in preserving the population, encouraging breeding and protecting the weak to the point where the population has boomed leading to starvation, overpopulation and numbers are, indeed, now presenting both local and national government with significant space problems as well as being a drain on the country's resources.

So, we propose a solution which has worked in the past when similar problems beset the badger and fox populations. In short, there will be a controlled, humane and targeted cull of peasants in the next few months - before the breeding season begins.

Sorry! Sorry. Bit of a typo there. Pheasants. Definitely pheasants. What was I thinking? Ha ha ha. Hmmmm.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it[/p][/quote]I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.[/p][/quote]We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP. The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it. I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria. It shows we are serious about local democracy.[/p][/quote]So what is UKIP's great idea to solve the problem of the ever increasing pressure to find land to build on?[/p][/quote]*tongue in cheek mode* Government policy over the years has been extremely successful in preserving the population, encouraging breeding and protecting the weak to the point where the population has boomed leading to starvation, overpopulation and numbers are, indeed, now presenting both local and national government with significant space problems as well as being a drain on the country's resources. So, we propose a solution which has worked in the past when similar problems beset the badger and fox populations. In short, there will be a controlled, humane and targeted cull of peasants in the next few months - before the breeding season begins. Sorry! Sorry. Bit of a typo there. Pheasants. Definitely pheasants. What was I thinking? Ha ha ha. Hmmmm. TRT

3:44pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

TRT wrote:
garston tony wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
LSC wrote:
garston tony wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it
I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.
We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP. The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it. I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria. It shows we are serious about local democracy.
So what is UKIP's great idea to solve the problem of the ever increasing pressure to find land to build on?
*tongue in cheek mode* Government policy over the years has been extremely successful in preserving the population, encouraging breeding and protecting the weak to the point where the population has boomed leading to starvation, overpopulation and numbers are, indeed, now presenting both local and national government with significant space problems as well as being a drain on the country's resources. So, we propose a solution which has worked in the past when similar problems beset the badger and fox populations. In short, there will be a controlled, humane and targeted cull of peasants in the next few months - before the breeding season begins. Sorry! Sorry. Bit of a typo there. Pheasants. Definitely pheasants. What was I thinking? Ha ha ha. Hmmmm.
Assuming a cull would not be popular or legal (sorry TRT) we would look at the options before us and try to cope without losing the green belt.

More importantly perhaps, at national level, we need to tackle the causes of the pressure to build homes. Managing immigration would be a great help but is out of the question as long as we remain in the EU as we have given up the right to control our own borders.

Britain needs some immigration, managed immigration will be a positive thing for this country, but only when managed properly. At the moment it is totally unmanaged and this is causing problems, not only on home building but schools, healthcare and everthying else provided by our taxes through the state.

Once you have build on the green belt it's never coming back, so manage it wisely.

There are always choices in life. We need councillors who will stand up and be counted, not roll over to have their tummies tickled by developers and inspectors. If they don't like it down at TRDC, then they have the deputy prime minister to go to. Did they? Why not? Maybe no-one actually cares.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is the point of greenbelt land if its protected status can be removed just like that? It should be a lot harder to do so than just some report and the feeling of hopelessness of local councillors. As another poster has said, use the brownfield options. Its the developers that'll have to carry the cost (quite rightly) of making it suitable for whatever they might want to build on it[/p][/quote]I was about to type the exact same thing. Green Belt is only protected until somebody decides to build on it. Obviously our Councils have no clout and can be easily bullied by those above. Is any wonder why so few people, like myself, even bother to vote anymore? Our opinions count for nothing.[/p][/quote]We in UKIP feel exactly the same LSC. That's one of the main reasons driving people to vote UKIP and join UKIP. The other parties just take us for granted and that has to stop, people are getting really fed up with it. I also think that's why UKIP has policies such as guaranteed local referenda on contentious issues. It forces a democratic process whareas the other parties just decide based on their own narrow criteria. It shows we are serious about local democracy.[/p][/quote]So what is UKIP's great idea to solve the problem of the ever increasing pressure to find land to build on?[/p][/quote]*tongue in cheek mode* Government policy over the years has been extremely successful in preserving the population, encouraging breeding and protecting the weak to the point where the population has boomed leading to starvation, overpopulation and numbers are, indeed, now presenting both local and national government with significant space problems as well as being a drain on the country's resources. So, we propose a solution which has worked in the past when similar problems beset the badger and fox populations. In short, there will be a controlled, humane and targeted cull of peasants in the next few months - before the breeding season begins. Sorry! Sorry. Bit of a typo there. Pheasants. Definitely pheasants. What was I thinking? Ha ha ha. Hmmmm.[/p][/quote]Assuming a cull would not be popular or legal (sorry TRT) we would look at the options before us and try to cope without losing the green belt. More importantly perhaps, at national level, we need to tackle the causes of the pressure to build homes. Managing immigration would be a great help but is out of the question as long as we remain in the EU as we have given up the right to control our own borders. Britain needs some immigration, managed immigration will be a positive thing for this country, but only when managed properly. At the moment it is totally unmanaged and this is causing problems, not only on home building but schools, healthcare and everthying else provided by our taxes through the state. Once you have build on the green belt it's never coming back, so manage it wisely. There are always choices in life. We need councillors who will stand up and be counted, not roll over to have their tummies tickled by developers and inspectors. If they don't like it down at TRDC, then they have the deputy prime minister to go to. Did they? Why not? Maybe no-one actually cares. Phil Cox (UKIP)

4:26pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Sara says...

Mad_Hat wrote:
So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in.
I've tried to explain, but will do so again. If a council objects to the Inspector's findings, the whole plan is found 'unsound' . That would mean that the whole District would be up for grabs for development and if ThreeRivers turned down the applications, a (different) inspector would grant n appeal.

We have been fighting this Green Belt re designation for several months - there are several exchanges of letters and various meetings. But in the end we lost.
[quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in.[/p][/quote]I've tried to explain, but will do so again. If a council objects to the Inspector's findings, the whole plan is found 'unsound' . That would mean that the whole District would be up for grabs for development and if ThreeRivers turned down the applications, a (different) inspector would grant n appeal. We have been fighting this Green Belt re designation for several months - there are several exchanges of letters and various meetings. But in the end we lost. Sara

4:29pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Sara wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote: So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in.
I've tried to explain, but will do so again. If a council objects to the Inspector's findings, the whole plan is found 'unsound' . That would mean that the whole District would be up for grabs for development and if ThreeRivers turned down the applications, a (different) inspector would grant n appeal. We have been fighting this Green Belt re designation for several months - there are several exchanges of letters and various meetings. But in the end we lost.
What's Nick Clegg got to say about all this Sara?

He is Deputy PM, after all.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in.[/p][/quote]I've tried to explain, but will do so again. If a council objects to the Inspector's findings, the whole plan is found 'unsound' . That would mean that the whole District would be up for grabs for development and if ThreeRivers turned down the applications, a (different) inspector would grant n appeal. We have been fighting this Green Belt re designation for several months - there are several exchanges of letters and various meetings. But in the end we lost.[/p][/quote]What's Nick Clegg got to say about all this Sara? He is Deputy PM, after all. Phil Cox (UKIP)

4:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

TRT says...

Sara wrote:
Mad_Hat wrote:
So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in.
I've tried to explain, but will do so again. If a council objects to the Inspector's findings, the whole plan is found 'unsound' . That would mean that the whole District would be up for grabs for development and if ThreeRivers turned down the applications, a (different) inspector would grant n appeal.

We have been fighting this Green Belt re designation for several months - there are several exchanges of letters and various meetings. But in the end we lost.
So basically, every 10 years or so when the local planning policy framework is rewritten, the 'green belt' area borders can be played around with... although this is frowned upon. But surely if the local plan is found to be at fault, then the zoning and area designations should revert to the previous plan? Hertfordshire councils have made pretty heavy use of green belt zoning, by the way. There was an interactive map in the Telegraph last year or the year before, if I recall correctly.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mad_Hat[/bold] wrote: So, despite obvious and vocal opposition to all of the above plans, our elected representatives did not even bother to fight and vote against? What a fantastic democratic country we live in.[/p][/quote]I've tried to explain, but will do so again. If a council objects to the Inspector's findings, the whole plan is found 'unsound' . That would mean that the whole District would be up for grabs for development and if ThreeRivers turned down the applications, a (different) inspector would grant n appeal. We have been fighting this Green Belt re designation for several months - there are several exchanges of letters and various meetings. But in the end we lost.[/p][/quote]So basically, every 10 years or so when the local planning policy framework is rewritten, the 'green belt' area borders can be played around with... although this is frowned upon. But surely if the local plan is found to be at fault, then the zoning and area designations should revert to the previous plan? Hertfordshire councils have made pretty heavy use of green belt zoning, by the way. There was an interactive map in the Telegraph last year or the year before, if I recall correctly. TRT

5:11pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Sara says...

Yes, Three Rivers have been told that they have to re designate Green Belt boundaries within the next ten years (I jest not).

If the Plan is found to beat fault,there is no P,an. The old plan has expired. That's the rule.
Yes, Three Rivers have been told that they have to re designate Green Belt boundaries within the next ten years (I jest not). If the Plan is found to beat fault,there is no P,an. The old plan has expired. That's the rule. Sara

5:22pm Tue 28 Jan 14

TRT says...

I understood that local plans containing green belt boundary changes were going to be fast tracked through the central review process... not that they HAD to be reviewed.
I understood that local plans containing green belt boundary changes were going to be fast tracked through the central review process... not that they HAD to be reviewed. TRT

6:13pm Tue 28 Jan 14

abbotshornet says...

Urban sprall is what we will end up with, each town and city running into the next with no buffer between. What was the point of designating areas as green belt if this government can remove the protection when they want?
At this rate before we know it London will spread from the south coast northwards up the M1 to Birmingham.
Urban sprall is what we will end up with, each town and city running into the next with no buffer between. What was the point of designating areas as green belt if this government can remove the protection when they want? At this rate before we know it London will spread from the south coast northwards up the M1 to Birmingham. abbotshornet

6:29pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

The problem is at the centre, in Government.

The LibDems have a plant in the centre of government. Why don't they take it to him?

Does anyone care down at TRDC?

Clegg defied the Tories to stop democratic constituency boundaries being redefined. Why is he not stopping the destruction of our countryside? (Why isn't Cameron?) No backbone? Doesn't care? He's not got relatives or donors who are developers has he?

Or are the LibDems too busy with their own little difficulties that seem to be popping up almost every other day?

Whatever, it's a disgrace that our Green Belt is being tugged out from under us all in the name of ? Well, what? Building more and more homes? For who? What's causing this demand? The LibDem open-door EU immigration policy they love so much? I suppose those EU millions have to go somewhere. I just haven't figured out why we have to let them go here.

Vote LibDem, let anyone in, and build them somewhere to live until we run out of green space. The LibDems, Labour and Conservatives are the problem, because they all work for the EU.

Lovely!
The problem is at the centre, in Government. The LibDems have a plant in the centre of government. Why don't they take it to him? Does anyone care down at TRDC? Clegg defied the Tories to stop democratic constituency boundaries being redefined. Why is he not stopping the destruction of our countryside? (Why isn't Cameron?) No backbone? Doesn't care? He's not got relatives or donors who are developers has he? Or are the LibDems too busy with their own little difficulties that seem to be popping up almost every other day? Whatever, it's a disgrace that our Green Belt is being tugged out from under us all in the name of ? Well, what? Building more and more homes? For who? What's causing this demand? The LibDem open-door EU immigration policy they love so much? I suppose those EU millions have to go somewhere. I just haven't figured out why we have to let them go here. Vote LibDem, let anyone in, and build them somewhere to live until we run out of green space. The LibDems, Labour and Conservatives are the problem, because they all work for the EU. Lovely! Phil Cox (UKIP)

7:05pm Tue 28 Jan 14

crazyfrog says...

All these comments of local councillors from different parties bickering about party polices bores the pants off me, This inspector is going to ruin this area , he needs to be stopped, the green belt needs protecting, so what are the local people going to do about it? Is there a protest group set up to fight this inspectors decisions?
All these comments of local councillors from different parties bickering about party polices bores the pants off me, This inspector is going to ruin this area , he needs to be stopped, the green belt needs protecting, so what are the local people going to do about it? Is there a protest group set up to fight this inspectors decisions? crazyfrog

7:31pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Where's Harrington in all this?

He's a developer isn't he? Where does he stand on loss of the greenbelt? The problem lies in Westminster as much as TRDC, if not more so.

These inspectors need stopping, I quite agree with Crazyfrog. They are a curse.
Where's Harrington in all this? He's a developer isn't he? Where does he stand on loss of the greenbelt? The problem lies in Westminster as much as TRDC, if not more so. These inspectors need stopping, I quite agree with Crazyfrog. They are a curse. Phil Cox (UKIP)

11:17pm Tue 28 Jan 14

LSC says...

crazyfrog wrote:
All these comments of local councillors from different parties bickering about party polices bores the pants off me, This inspector is going to ruin this area , he needs to be stopped, the green belt needs protecting, so what are the local people going to do about it? Is there a protest group set up to fight this inspectors decisions?
Who are the locals actually fighting, and how? You can stand in a field with a placard until the cows come home, which of course they won't soon, but who is listening?
The Council are clearly toothless. The Government will tell you this is a result of policy by the previous government. The previous government will say it is a new policy they never would have allowed, but now it is in place even if they win the next election it might be difficult to stop, but they would certainly say 'tut tut' loudly and blame the previous government.
In the meantime the developers do whatever the hell they want to make fast cash.
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: All these comments of local councillors from different parties bickering about party polices bores the pants off me, This inspector is going to ruin this area , he needs to be stopped, the green belt needs protecting, so what are the local people going to do about it? Is there a protest group set up to fight this inspectors decisions?[/p][/quote]Who are the locals actually fighting, and how? You can stand in a field with a placard until the cows come home, which of course they won't soon, but who is listening? The Council are clearly toothless. The Government will tell you this is a result of policy by the previous government. The previous government will say it is a new policy they never would have allowed, but now it is in place even if they win the next election it might be difficult to stop, but they would certainly say 'tut tut' loudly and blame the previous government. In the meantime the developers do whatever the hell they want to make fast cash. LSC

12:53am Wed 29 Jan 14

G_Whiz says...

In twenty five years time when we have food shortages we'll be wishing we kept more land to farm!

Think i'm paranoid? - look at population growth statistics around the world, and the fact that richer countries will pay a higher price for food grown by our usual suppliers.

As with fuel and oil, food supply is a ticking time-bomb no one will address and until it's too late.
In twenty five years time when we have food shortages we'll be wishing we kept more land to farm! Think i'm paranoid? - look at population growth statistics around the world, and the fact that richer countries will pay a higher price for food grown by our usual suppliers. As with fuel and oil, food supply is a ticking time-bomb no one will address and until it's too late. G_Whiz

8:48am Wed 29 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

G_Whiz wrote:
In twenty five years time when we have food shortages we'll be wishing we kept more land to farm!

Think i'm paranoid? - look at population growth statistics around the world, and the fact that richer countries will pay a higher price for food grown by our usual suppliers.

As with fuel and oil, food supply is a ticking time-bomb no one will address and until it's too late.
In 25 years time we might wish we had not been members of the EU with an open border.

Of our 70 million population, about 4 million are migrants having arrived since 1997.

So, back in 1997, for every 16 people we had in this country, there is now an extra one, a migrant.

For every 16 homes we had in 1997, we need an extra one.

For every 16 schools we had in 1997, we need an extra one.

For every 16 hospital beds we had in 1997, we need an extra one.

....I'm sure you get the idea. More pressure to build on the green belt.

In the next 15 years things will get worse. For every 70 people in this country now there will be an extra 7.

5 of those 7 will be as a result of immigration.

For every 10 homes we have now, we are going to need another 1.

For every 10 schools we have now, we are going to need another 1.

For every 10 hospitals we have now we are going to need another 1.

For every city we have now - well the government have already said they are minded to build two new cities.

How long can we go on like this before there is an outbreak of common sense?

LibDems love it, the more the better. Labour says nothing, hoping you will believe they are thinking the same as you. In the end, Labour too are in favour of EU membership and therefore open-door immigration.

The Conservatives are split between those who love it and those who hate it. At present, under Cameron, the party is in favour of staying in the EU under any circumstances. So, no hope there then.

Only UKIP offers a way out of this mess.

The Tories may talk about UKIP policies and they "understand your pain", but at the end of the day if you actually want UKIP policies on things like immigration then you have to vote UKIP.

UKIP = managed immigration. Like Australia, USA, Canada and most other developed independent countries. Like the UK used to have.

LibLabCon = open door immigration from the EU. A by-product of which is the destruction of our cherished Green Belt.
[quote][p][bold]G_Whiz[/bold] wrote: In twenty five years time when we have food shortages we'll be wishing we kept more land to farm! Think i'm paranoid? - look at population growth statistics around the world, and the fact that richer countries will pay a higher price for food grown by our usual suppliers. As with fuel and oil, food supply is a ticking time-bomb no one will address and until it's too late.[/p][/quote]In 25 years time we might wish we had not been members of the EU with an open border. Of our 70 million population, about 4 million are migrants having arrived since 1997. So, back in 1997, for every 16 people we had in this country, there is now an extra one, a migrant. For every 16 homes we had in 1997, we need an extra one. For every 16 schools we had in 1997, we need an extra one. For every 16 hospital beds we had in 1997, we need an extra one. ....I'm sure you get the idea. More pressure to build on the green belt. In the next 15 years things will get worse. For every 70 people in this country now there will be an extra 7. 5 of those 7 will be as a result of immigration. For every 10 homes we have now, we are going to need another 1. For every 10 schools we have now, we are going to need another 1. For every 10 hospitals we have now we are going to need another 1. For every city we have now - well the government have already said they are minded to build two new cities. How long can we go on like this before there is an outbreak of common sense? LibDems love it, the more the better. Labour says nothing, hoping you will believe they are thinking the same as you. In the end, Labour too are in favour of EU membership and therefore open-door immigration. The Conservatives are split between those who love it and those who hate it. At present, under Cameron, the party is in favour of staying in the EU under any circumstances. So, no hope there then. Only UKIP offers a way out of this mess. The Tories may talk about UKIP policies and they "understand your pain", but at the end of the day if you actually want UKIP policies on things like immigration then you have to vote UKIP. UKIP = managed immigration. Like Australia, USA, Canada and most other developed independent countries. Like the UK used to have. LibLabCon = open door immigration from the EU. A by-product of which is the destruction of our cherished Green Belt. Phil Cox (UKIP)

1:40pm Wed 29 Jan 14

not a regular says...

I personally have no problem with the green belt being built on. At the end of the day, due to A COMBINATION of restrictive planning laws AND an open door policy on immigration, we find ourselves lacking in infrastructure and housing, and those properties that are being built are generally cramped, of poor quality and don't have a garden. There's no arguing that, what's done is essentially done and even closing that door today will still result in those previous immigrants having children in this country, it can't really be reversed.

We do need to utilise a small portion of the 97% of land that hasn't yet been built on in this country.
I personally have no problem with the green belt being built on. At the end of the day, due to A COMBINATION of restrictive planning laws AND an open door policy on immigration, we find ourselves lacking in infrastructure and housing, and those properties that are being built are generally cramped, of poor quality and don't have a garden. There's no arguing that, what's done is essentially done and even closing that door today will still result in those previous immigrants having children in this country, it can't really be reversed. We do need to utilise a small portion of the 97% of land that hasn't yet been built on in this country. not a regular

1:45pm Wed 29 Jan 14

oldgold says...

To me, this decision is very sad.

I was a member of Abbots Langley Parish Council (finally chairman of the Planning & Highways Committee) and a regular observer at Three Rivers planning meetings.

Councillors Williams and Giles-Medhurst spent much time on preparing proposals for ALPC's response to the Local Plan. Because ALPC is not a Nimby-ish council, some areas of Green Belt land was identified as being suitable for new-build. the ALPC proposals were accepted by TRDC.

Later, I wrote the Abbots Langley response to the national government's new proposals for planning rules and regs. Therein, I stressed the importance to such areas as Abbots L of maintaining some green spaces between much bigger neighbours: St Albans, Watford, Hemel Hempstead.

At present, Abbots Langley has an individuality which should not be sacrificed by allowing the civil parish to be subsumed into one large urban conurbation engulfing all of south-west Herts. Indeed, within what is a very large civil parish, places such as Bedmond, Pimlico, Hunton Bridge, Langleybury, Primrose Hill and Leavesden each retain their own individuality. Long may that survive.

I am tempted to offer warm words to Sara (but I know where you live!)

It is also a temptation to say unkind things about Phil Cox. Again, I shall say nothing but that I attended the same secondary school as his Dear Leader, only adding that Nige is reviled by the great majority of his fellow OAs!

Finally, to underline the absence of Nimby attitudes on ALPC, it was but rarely that there were any objections to planning applications, whether for a garage conversion, the Harry Potter Experience or 400 new homes near the WB studios. But don't worry, I always paid close attention to reports on what I was wont to refer to as 'bats in the belfry' and 'dead Romans'!

And, if you decide to say that I'm batty, dear Mr Cox, I shall agree with you, with alacrity. It's what keeps me from going sane.
To me, this decision is very sad. I was a member of Abbots Langley Parish Council (finally chairman of the Planning & Highways Committee) and a regular observer at Three Rivers planning meetings. Councillors Williams and Giles-Medhurst spent much time on preparing proposals for ALPC's response to the Local Plan. Because ALPC is not a Nimby-ish council, some areas of Green Belt land was identified as being suitable for new-build. the ALPC proposals were accepted by TRDC. Later, I wrote the Abbots Langley response to the national government's new proposals for planning rules and regs. Therein, I stressed the importance to such areas as Abbots L of maintaining some green spaces between much bigger neighbours: St Albans, Watford, Hemel Hempstead. At present, Abbots Langley has an individuality which should not be sacrificed by allowing the civil parish to be subsumed into one large urban conurbation engulfing all of south-west Herts. Indeed, within what is a very large civil parish, places such as Bedmond, Pimlico, Hunton Bridge, Langleybury, Primrose Hill and Leavesden each retain their own individuality. Long may that survive. I am tempted to offer warm words to Sara (but I know where you live!) It is also a temptation to say unkind things about Phil Cox. Again, I shall say nothing but that I attended the same secondary school as his Dear Leader, only adding that Nige is reviled by the great majority of his fellow OAs! Finally, to underline the absence of Nimby attitudes on ALPC, it was but rarely that there were any objections to planning applications, whether for a garage conversion, the Harry Potter Experience or 400 new homes near the WB studios. But don't worry, I always paid close attention to reports on what I was wont to refer to as 'bats in the belfry' and 'dead Romans'! And, if you decide to say that I'm batty, dear Mr Cox, I shall agree with you, with alacrity. It's what keeps me from going sane. oldgold

1:52pm Wed 29 Jan 14

oldgold says...

PS: Yes, where is Watford's beloved MP, Mr Harrington? Busily, preparing planning applications, I suspect. Hmmm...
PS: Yes, where is Watford's beloved MP, Mr Harrington? Busily, preparing planning applications, I suspect. Hmmm... oldgold

11:32pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Pdadme says...

Who exactly is the "government inspector" and whereabouts in Croxley does he live?
I am making the assumptuion that he has visited Croxley, looked at the field and said " Oh yes! That looks like avery good place to build a school"
What is the present status of Green Belt? Is it now the case that if somebody wants to build houses or a school on Green Belt land the government inspector just says yes that's fine?
Three Rivers cannot just say, well if we don't build there we'll only have to build somewhere else. If they have to build somewhere else, what is the site that they are protecting, that is so important that they must allow building in Croxley.
What has the The Liberal Democrat representative for Chorleywood West got to do with it?
Presumably he is saying: If we don't build in Croxley they might make us build in Chorleywood. Why not build in Chorleywood, or is that being set aside for a predicted shortfall in Bucks?
Chorleywood already managed to get the county boundary moved from Shire Lane (the clue's in the name) some decades ago, so that householders could be in Herts instead of Bucks.
Clement Danes is a busines concern from Tottenham that built a new school in Chorleywood for purely financial reasons and seems to have their own criteria for choosing their pupils, along the lines of do your parents have money?
Why have they even been consulted to tender? Are they a property developer or a county council?
It would obviously be hugely bewneficial to them to build a school on the outskirts of Watford. They would make a forune.
I'm afraid the whole afair stinks of vested interests and although one is not allowed to make such suggestions, I would assert very strongly that this has far more to do with money than education.
Why were Watford Borough Council not forced to build schools when they built hundreds of houses and commercial premises?
Was there not a projected shortfall at the time they built the houses? If not, then why not.
If you build houses for hundreds of families how can there not be a projected shortfall before you build them?
Who exactly is the "government inspector" and whereabouts in Croxley does he live? I am making the assumptuion that he has visited Croxley, looked at the field and said " Oh yes! That looks like avery good place to build a school" What is the present status of Green Belt? Is it now the case that if somebody wants to build houses or a school on Green Belt land the government inspector just says yes that's fine? Three Rivers cannot just say, well if we don't build there we'll only have to build somewhere else. If they have to build somewhere else, what is the site that they are protecting, that is so important that they must allow building in Croxley. What has the The Liberal Democrat representative for Chorleywood West got to do with it? Presumably he is saying: If we don't build in Croxley they might make us build in Chorleywood. Why not build in Chorleywood, or is that being set aside for a predicted shortfall in Bucks? Chorleywood already managed to get the county boundary moved from Shire Lane (the clue's in the name) some decades ago, so that householders could be in Herts instead of Bucks. Clement Danes is a busines concern from Tottenham that built a new school in Chorleywood for purely financial reasons and seems to have their own criteria for choosing their pupils, along the lines of do your parents have money? Why have they even been consulted to tender? Are they a property developer or a county council? It would obviously be hugely bewneficial to them to build a school on the outskirts of Watford. They would make a forune. I'm afraid the whole afair stinks of vested interests and although one is not allowed to make such suggestions, I would assert very strongly that this has far more to do with money than education. Why were Watford Borough Council not forced to build schools when they built hundreds of houses and commercial premises? Was there not a projected shortfall at the time they built the houses? If not, then why not. If you build houses for hundreds of families how can there not be a projected shortfall before you build them? Pdadme

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree