Jump to content

Land Ploughed - Wildlife Displaced


JonA
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think you may be referring to the piece of land in the Stockton Heath area which was earmarked for development but was in use by local residents as a BMX track and walkthrough area. The case was made for retaining its use by residents as it was one of the few remaining pieces of open land available and development seemed inappropriate. I believe the conservatives and lib/dems got involved and the land was retained for use by the residents.

 

This case is slightly different in that it is not the only piece of open land and the children in the area do have places that they can play without this piece of land being retained for that use. This is why the action of ploughing it up is, in my mind, somewhat paranoid. It would be nice (and in the interests of maintaining a cooperative attitude between residents and EP) if EP could find it in their hearts to leave the land in a more attractive state in the intervening years before the building work takes place?

 

The land does also provide children with a short cut from the new estate to the primary school, and this short cut will effectively be made permanent when the building work takes place, so nothing is being done now that conflicts with the intended future use.

 

In support of that use of the land, when the original embankments were put in place, a footpath wide opening was deliberately left to allow residents to gain access to and walk across the field. Thus access has always been encouraged, and talk now of "trespass" seems in contradiction of this intent.

 

I am beginning to think that the act of ploughing the field may have been the decision of one individual who may perhaps not have been acting in accordance with overall intent. After all, EP hold the land on behalf of the council and thus on behalf of all our interests and should therefore be trying to act accordingly - they are not a private organisation protecting their own profitable interests (which would of course be a different matter entirely).

 

A final note regarding something that doesn't make sense - I was given the impression by EP that they were annoyed at residents walking across the land and the ploughing was to prevent this, but in ploughing the field the machine that was used was also used to flatten and recreate the two short cuts across the land - so which is it? Trespassers beware or residents welcome? Should we continue to use the two paths and the cycle path or should we be afraid of being prosecuted for trespass?

 

I was given the impression (but this may be my misunderstanding) by the local conservative councillor for the area in which the land falls that the latter was the case and walking on the land represented trespass - and appropriate action could therefore be taken by EP. This seems in contradiction with the manner in which the land has been prepared. I am confused... as are many othe local residents with who I have discussed this matter.

 

Jon A

 

p.s. Don't talk much do I.... :D

p.p.s. Perhaps it would make a good location for an open rehabilitation centre/prison? :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So IF you are aware of the law Diz; why are you encouraging the idea of breaking it?! :roll::wink:

 

Where on earth did I encourage breaking the law in my previous post Obs :?::roll: Just to clarify what I actually said it was .....

 

I'm not so daft that I don't know about the laws of alleged tresspass and injury claims ......but I'm definately not completely stupid either

 

Ok so I spelt trespass wrong :P but other than my spelling I'm still not stupid :P

 

Does EP have signs on all their pieces of land saying they are 'private' or 'no trespassing' etc :wink: Bet they will now :roll:

 

Funny how rules and regulations only ever come into force when a development opportunity or chance of sale is in the pipeline though :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be referring to the piece of land in the Stockton Heath area which was earmarked for development but was in use by local residents as a BMX track and walkthrough area.

 

It wasn't that one JonA... it was definately another piece of EP land in Appleton. It was in the Warrington 'G' recently (sorry Gary :oops: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the subject in question :oops:

 

Taken from a news article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/29/affordable-homes-social-housing

 

Across the country, construction sites are grinding to a halt as builders go bust. But the new Homes and Communities Agency's ambitious plans could use public funds to ease the crisis.

 

EP are part of this new agency :wink:

 

If government funding etc does come earlier than expected for the agencies plans due to the currnet credit crunch maybe that is why EP are suddenly so keen on protecting this piece of land by ensuring that it has no use to the local community what-so-ever.

 

At the end of the day everyone knew that this actual piece of land was earmarked for development at some time though.. it may just be sooner that they thought :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fair point Obs, but how much of this land which is in private ownership is used - illegally - by the public who then bleat and whine when the land owners chooses to work on its own land :?:

 

Not having a go, but "the community" seems to play fast and loose with the law when it suits, and then moans a lot when it doesn't. Still, that's applicable to so many aspects of modern life that it almost goes without saying.

 

I think that EP's self-imposed mortatorium on greenfield development will soon be eroded if the housing slump continues. The Government's aspiration to deliver 3,000,000 new homes is in tatters and frankly it doesn't seem to have a clue how to positively influence the situation (aside from announcing plans to make Council tenants, some of the most vulnerable, no longer entitled to a house for life).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cos presumably, they are paying the rent! :roll::wink:[/quote

 

So regardless of the change in circumstances of a renter they should be allowed to stay in much needed houses for life as long as they pay the rent? You will probably be the first to moan if single people were occupying 4 bed council houses as they used to live with a large family. I don't think regular assesment of housing needs would be a bad thing, perhaps quite the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Council Housing isn't some form of "emergency" accomodation for the destitute (although they do provide emergency housing for this purpose); it's a publicly owned alternative to the private sector, and should/can provide a responsible landlord alternative for those who will simply never be able to afford to buy their own home. :roll: Before you say it: some did buy them, under Maggie's "right to buy" at knock down prices, thus depriving us of around 20% of housing stock, thus the present shortage. :twisted: The irony is; that Council tenants arn't paying particularly cheap rents, for a home they will never own. :roll: Instead of idiotic suggestions like kicking folk out of a home they are paying good money for; perhaps a more sensible approach would be to build/aquire MORE Council Houses to feed an increasing demand. :shock::wink: As for your point about type of occupation, I will concede, there is a need for some form of incentive for appropriate accomodation to suit the family size.need of tenants - but that doesn't mean kicking them out! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't suggest throwing people out Observer, but I would suggest moving people who's circumstances have changed into more suitable accomodation. I agree with you regarding the aquisition of more housing stock and feel that at the present moment, as a great many private build projects are struggling or going under, it would be an ideal time for the country to take advantage of a buyers market and invest in social housing. It would make a change for the people to gain where the conglomerates lost don't you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, shows we can agree on something: the "buy to let" speculative landlords are now defaulting on their mortgages, so an ideal time for Councils to be allowed by Government, to buy them up at knock down prices for social housing - perhaps "after right to buy" that would represent a divine recompense for the community budget. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...