Well, what do people think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4227996.stm

I do find it daft that we're starting to build in the countryside when there are large swathes of brownfield sites in towns that could be redeveloped. Just as it's daft that farmers are stopping farming and going in to tourism while we find ourselves importing foods from half way around the world.

Joe

I agree Joe, then you get townies complaining about wildlife like foxes & badgers on their property, rumaging in bins n stuff. Complain about birds singing, complain about narrow roads for their sooped up beemers, complain about tractors going slow....:loopy:



Stay in the city if you don't like the countryside, don't try to change it to suit you!
:mad:

You're right about the new building Joe. Sheffield has an enormous amount of brownfield sites (all that heavy industry remember!), so it saddens me when people are developing even the tiniest bits of green belt, so folk can say they live in the countryside. If they build hundreds of identikit houses on it, it's not going to be countryside is it?! :confused:

Didn't Sheffield City Council have a policy to protect our greenbelt?

I'm all for the countryside and its protection, but certain groups do have a habit of exaggerating the facts to suit their own agenda.

Remember when Greenpeace gave inaccurate information regarding Shell Oil's plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at sea?

And I'm sure that back in the late-nineties, certain anti-car groups were forcasting that if the rate of motorway building continued as it did, that by the year 2000, the entire country would have been concreted over.

I'm sure that we'll still have our countryside by 2035 - the extreme NIMBYs will see to that ;)

We couldn't lose all our countryside because a lot of it (round Sheffield anyway) isn't suitable for building on, who is going to want to live at the top of Mam Tor ?

Originally posted by nick2
who is going to want to live at the top of Mam Tor ?

If you can get me a fast internet connection up there, I'll give it some serious thought.

As well as building sites there's a massive amount of land taken by new golf courses.

Originally posted by nick2
We couldn't lose all our countryside because a lot of it (round Sheffield anyway) isn't suitable for building on, who is going to want to live at the top of Mam Tor ?

I reckon you could have it levelled with a few weeks of serious work (and some heavy machinery).

Sadly, Cyclone is correct here. It is folly to regard any countryside as 'sacred' or 'safe' these days, especially with Prescott's almost maniacal desire to build more and more houses. The equipment exists, as Cyclone says, to render even Mam Tor as flat as the Lincolnshire Wolds. How successful are the protests about the loss of countryside? I do not have the figures/info, but I cannot imagine that there are a great many victories. Agriculture is now Agribusiness too, and many farmers care not a jot for the 'aesthetic' appeal of a landscape they regard as their working environment. Perhaps financial incentives to stewardship of the 'aesthetic' side of the rural landscape for farmers might work to an extent, but ultimately I think we are going to lose a lot more of our 'green and pleasant' land. Then, as Larkin [that's Philip, not 'Pop'] once said, 'That will be England gone...'

Unfortunately the CPRE has a political agenda that is about garnering power for itself as a lobby group. Sorry, but the CPRE is nothing more than a self serving middle class quango IMO.

To correct earlier statements, in Sheffield, there is NO greenbelt development. Strong policies are in place and they are adhered to... unless the land belongs to the Council.

The CPRE also now finds it necessary to comment on planning of city centre developments. Surely this has nothing to do with them.

As for the CPRE, guess where they have their offices? Right in the middle of Broomhill. Hardly supportive of countryside jobs and the rural economy.

As far as they are concerned, the countryside is a place to keep for the enjoyment of ramblers and other such city folk. Stuff the farmers!

Tony may well be right re the CPRE. I have heard similar sentiments expressed, though what being predominantly 'middle class' has to do with the quango-like nature of this lobby group I do not know. I suppose if it was predominantly working class in composition it might be more effective and properly-focused? I do not think so. Generally speaking the middle classes are better educated, more dynamic and more capable. I can think of only a very few examples [such as the Eldonian housing co-op in Liverpool] which offer contradictory evidence. Give me Middle class values and norms every time.

However, I can see Tony's point clearly regarding the contempt for farmers [I come from, in part, farming stock on my maternal side] held by certain lobby groups. Farmers do have a very important job to do, and they should be accorded great respect in the majority of cases. I personally despise the 'forbidding' of rural culture such as hunting by the Labour Party, for example. The rural community has its own, often ancient, ways and these traditions should not be interfered with by metropolitan types of left/liberal consensus. It is ironic that the latter types so often champion the rights of minorities, whilst riding roughshod over the rights of the rural people. That said, the lobby groups do have a cogent point when they argue that much 'common' land has been confiscated [some would say 'stolen'] since the time of the Enclosures up to the present day. Farmers should be accorded great respect, but the countryside can never wholly belong to them in a democratic, humane society.

there building houses where ever they can now. we were suppost to be getting a new swimming pool near us cos there was an old unsed building. But now it's posh flats so much for are swimming pool. If I was to move to the contryside it would be to get away from the city

Originally posted by Tony
To correct earlier statements, in Sheffield, there is NO greenbelt development. Strong policies are in place and they are adhered to... unless the land belongs to the Council.


Is that right Tony? :o It sounds like the council could say "we'll build where we like, but you can't"! Surely greenbelt should be treated the same whoever it belongs to. It's the 'green' part that's important, not who owns it!!

The CPRE is mainly middle class... as our so many other groups interested in this sort of thing. i.e. National Trust and so on.

So here is the problem. How do you get other groups engaged in protection of the countryside? It's very very difficult. Many inner city kids just aren't interested in the countryside so couldn't care less if it's all paved over.

Originally posted by nick2
We couldn't lose all our countryside because a lot of it (round Sheffield anyway) isn't suitable for building on, who is going to want to live at the top of Mam Tor ?
People did 3000 years ago, and they only had wattle and daub huts:thumbsup:

Originally posted by algy
People did 3000 years ago, and they only had wattle and daub huts:thumbsup:

I bet they couldn't get broadband though.

Originally posted by feargal
Is that right Tony? :o It sounds like the council could say "we'll build where we like, but you can't"! Surely greenbelt should be treated the same whoever it belongs to. It's the 'green' part that's important, not who owns it!!
There's a planning application in at the moment for a 72 foot high phone mast on Council land in the Porter Valley, well into the greenbelt. Interestingly the CPRE are not opposing it. I'll watch with interest.

I used to keep my horses on a big field at Birley, alas it is now becoming a very large housing estate.
It makes me so angry, that this once beautiful countryside is disappearing very quickly.

I chuckle to myself though because I'll bet no-one told these townies that the nice new carboard box's are actually built ontop of the old mine workings.
These big housing companies, such as barrets, redrow offer the owner of the land BIG BUCKS, something like quarter of a million per acre, so if your a farmer working non profit making land then I can see the choice being extremely easy.

I really dislike townies, like they'll walk into your local country pub and think they own the place. Then they choose to buy a country house then either rent it out as a holiday cottage or complain about the wildlife.....GRRRRRR
Just my opinion, no offence meant but when childhood memories of sun and open fields start disappearing it really gets to me.

On the whole I would maintain that there is no need for groups such as the CPRE.

We have a planning system that takes care of rural development. The CPRE merely takes it upon itself to meddle for self interest of those involved within it.

In Sheffield we have a similar group who meddle in urban planning, called SCAG - Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group. They are also a self appointed group who fail to declare personal interests whilst within the umbrella organisation.

CPRE - Ramblers.... SCAG - People who like old buildings.

Such groups are wholly self appointed yet purport to speak on your and my behalf, and there is now a trend for them to extend their range of interest well outside their original remit. So, the CPRE comment on urban buildings, SCAG comment on non conservation projects.

Farmers it seems don't have much of a voice on the things that affect their daily life and work. Perhaps they should have gone to a better school or live in Broomhill eh?

Hippy,
I repeat what I asked Tony initially. What is wrong with an organisation or lobby group being predominantly 'middle class'? For various sociological reasons, the middle classes are generally better educated, more affluent and possibly more capable than their working class counterparts. At least they give a damn about the future of the countryside, even if the idealistic 'roses around cottage doors', sanitised views of the more 'metropolitan' types tend to grate a little. I see no problem with the class composition of the CPRE, just the anti-farmer bias of a minority of its members.

The idea that anything predominantly 'middle class' is unhealthy, and even dangerous is unfortunately catching on in 'dumbed down' , Cromwell Blair's 'new', 'young' Britain. Recently, a 'Keep the Pound' type lobby group were singled out by the anti-fascist magazine, International Searchlight. Did they march in paramilitary uniforms demanding repatriation for all 'non-whites'? No, they were 'predominantly white and middle class', and the halfwit who wrote the article considered the group 'sinister' because he could not see a black or brown face or a representative of the glorious 'workers' amongst the marchers...

As you say, inner city types probably care little for the countryside. Some have probably never even seen a field. Why waste time with them? So many good charities, pressure groups and justice campaigns depend upon the generosity of the 'middle classes'. Don't knock them. They are not a 'problem'. We do not 'need' to get other socio-economic groups involved. From what I have seen of the inner cities of the large English cities, I would not wish the degraded inhabitants upon the countryside. In some areas, 'mainstream' values and norms have completely broken down, and we have transient, semi- criminal populations in a state of anomie. Of course they are not rushing to join the CPRE, and thank goodness for that. Of course, someone, somewhere will point to some inner-city version of David Bellamy. He would be in a minority, that is all.

The point I was making really was not so much about inner city kids but about young people in general.

It seems to me that young people in all walks of life are losing touch with the countryside. The CPRE and others are aging groups. Now whether you agree or not with what the CPRE champion, it's the future that concerns me.

Hippy,
Don't worry too much about the young. As the late, great Auberon Waugh once said, 'nobody is really any good until they are about 40'. The middle-aged, middle-classes have all the dosh. The young haven't got a bean, being in debt with student loans up to their eyeballs, unable to get on the property ladder etc. Of course, it is not all about money. Many of the young will be too busy listening to Radiohead, engaging in sexual congress and skateboarding [even all three simultaneously] to take an interest in matters like conservation. When they grow older, they might ponder the eternal verities and ask themselves what sorts of things do they really care about? Hopefully, when mellow, reflective and mature enough, they will form a new generation of conservationists. Give them time, they are young, callow and preoccupied with immediate self-gratification for the moment.

hahahaha...... I think you may well have a point there.

Unfortunately the CPRE has a political agenda that is about garnering power for itself as a lobby group. Sorry, but the CPRE is nothing more than a self serving middle class quango IMO.

To correct earlier statements, in Sheffield, there is NO greenbelt development. Strong policies are in place and they are adhered to... unless the land belongs to the Council.

The CPRE also now finds it necessary to comment on planning of city centre developments. Surely this has nothing to do with them.

As for the CPRE, guess where they have their offices? Right in the middle of Broomhill. Hardly supportive of countryside jobs and the rural economy.

As far as they are concerned, the countryside is a place to keep for the enjoyment of ramblers and other such city folk. Stuff the farmers!

The office for the CPRE is at Encliffe Crescent. This is because its founder the then Mrs Gallimore lived there and after she re-married and became Mrs Haythornethwaite the offices were left as a bequest. I believe.

I'm a member of the CPRE. I was born on the Manor Estate prior to graduating to the New Parson Cross Estate. Would anyone clearly state why I'm of Middle Class standard!!

Let this be obsolutely clear had it not been for Mrs Gallimore using her position to ask wealthy benifactors to buy areas of land such as Blackamoor, Longshaw, Leam, Ravenstor to mention a few. We would not have a Peak District National Park today it would have long been built upon. The ribbon houseing developements with intermitant gaps would exist all the way from Sheffield to Manchester.
I trust and hope that my statement is checked for being factual.

Hippy,
Don't worry too much about the young. As the late, great Auberon Waugh once said, 'nobody is really any good until they are about 40'. The middle-aged, middle-classes have all the dosh. The young haven't got a bean, being in debt with student loans up to their eyeballs, unable to get on the property ladder etc. Of course, it is not all about money. Many of the young will be too busy listening to Radiohead, engaging in sexual congress and skateboarding [even all three simultaneously] to take an interest in matters like conservation. When they grow older, they might ponder the eternal verities and ask themselves what sorts of things do they really care about? Hopefully, when mellow, reflective and mature enough, they will form a new generation of conservationists. Give them time, they are young, callow and preoccupied with immediate self-gratification for the moment.

Wow. Your posts in this thread have evidenced a remarkably ill-informed, stereotypical, and even downright offensive view of both young and working-class people. As a 19 year old, I love getting out to the Peak District as often as I can (even though I'm currently at university in Wales :D ), and I think that, were the scenario predicted by the CPRE to turn out to be accurate, it would be an absolute tragedy.

I've always felt a profound love and respect for the countryside - even back when I was an ignorant inner-city, working-class type living in S2 :rolleyes:

Wow. Your posts in this thread have evidenced a remarkably ill-informed, stereotypical, and even downright offensive view of both young and working-class people. As a 19 year old, I love getting out to the Peak District as often as I can (even though I'm currently at university in Wales :D ), and I think that, were the scenario predicted by the CPRE to turn out to be accurate, it would be an absolute tragedy.

I've always felt a profound love and respect for the countryside - even back when I was an ignorant inner-city, working-class type living in S2 :rolleyes:

Keep it up, Willdervish. I'm old enough to be you grand father and its nice to know that someone from my own personal background as got the go to dish out their oppinion of matters. Just make sure that you always listen to the points others make. You cannot put a old head on young shoulders.

I think it is a big mistake to protect farmland at the expense of every tiny bit of unused land in a city. If brownfield land is fit to have a house (with garden) on it, then it is fit to become a park.

One of the problems with groups such as the Countryside alliance, and the CPRE are that they pedal the myth of "Concreting over the countryside"

Land ownership in the UK is a total and utter scandal.
The UK has 60 Million acres, and there are around 60 million people who live here, packed in 8-10% of this land.
A full 40 Million acres of this land is owned by rich landowners, consisting of 4778 country estates of at least 741 acres each. They want to keep us oiks off their land which was given to their ancestors, after land grabs during the last millennium.

While us normal people have to register our property with the land registry, most of these wealthy landed gentry haven't. We all pay council tax and they each recieve an average of £21,000 each per annum, in so called "agricultural grants", and the government refuses to identify the recipients of this public money. The total amount paid by us commoners in council tax matches almost exactly the amount the land owners (not the farmers) recieve in these grants.

In the republic of Ireland, they had land reform between from late 1800s until recent years, and gave back the countryside to the landless pesentry, and guess what, they pay no council tax, but they still have the same public services as we have. Their economy is now better than ours.
This country has only 4 million people and in the 1990s their GDP was greater than the UK, they built 50,000 houses in 2001, while UK with its 60 million people managed to build only 142,000 houses in the same year.
Is it any wonder that people on average wages are now being priced out of the housing market altogether in the rest of England?

In 1945 Land redistribution was in the manifesto of the Labour party, and all the soldiers who had fought in the war were told that there would be a share out of the land that they had fought for. Labour got in to power.
They were betrayed by the inner elite.

Odd this thread should be revived just as the Barker Report is published.

The Barker Review also calls on local authorities to allow more building in green belt boundaries in their areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6208752.stm

This report is yet another commissioned by Gordon Brown/The Treasury and amazingly it's recommendations will probably come into effect just as a new windfall tax on profits from the development of greenfield sites should come into effect after 2008.

Goodbye to England's 'green and pleasant land' then. You can bet your life that if the Treasury gets a cut from such development profits there won't be a farmer's field left in fifty year's time. :D

Odd this thread should be revived just as the Barker Report is published.

Goodbye to England's 'green and pleasant land' then. You can bet your life that if the Treasury gets a cut from such development profits there won't be a farmer's field left in fifty year's time. :D
I think that is a little unfair Greybeard.

While there is a chronic shorage of housing, people are more important than keeping our cities squeezed in at their 30 year boundaries. If we don't allow the green belts out a little, then we will lose all our green space in the city, as every patch of garden will be taken over by planners to erect a sparrow's barracks to squeeze more people in.
And every little house in the city will be valued at £1M, meaning that mortgages will be over 60 years for first time buyers, people will have to pay these prices due to the lack of supply.
Would you rather your patch of garden was compulsarily purchased and your local park built on or the green belt moved out a little?

England's Green and pleasent Land Myth again?
Please tell me what is attractive about bleak enormous field after bleak enormous field. One long distance trip down the A1 will prove to you that so little of our country is built on, and there are few forests and hedgerows, just hundreds of miles of industrial scale farming.

I think that is a little unfair Greybeard.


Did you not notice the :D ?

Obviously the govt. intend to address the problem, - but not until the solution can be taxed.

But there needs to judicious use of greenbelt land, - pocket developments rather than just a general nibbling at the city's boundaries irrespective of what amenity value may be lost. Significant open recreational areas left undeveloped, not necessarily as official 'parks' but just decent sized areas for kids to play and people to walk their dogs or fly kites, - whatever. It won't happen of course because no developer or the council will pay for land that isn't going to show a profit or some revenue.

It is interesting how the city used to have hundreds of patches of unused land where houses were bombed in the war, but most of them have now been renewed and houses built on them.
20 years ago there were many sites where you could rent a garage for your car. Most of these have now gone and new houses and flats are situated there instead. We have even lost pubs and filling stations to new housing developments.
If the pressure continues to increase for housing we will finish up losing pubs, churches, local shops, then parks, duck ponds and all amenities to new apartments and flats. Sheffield will be a dormitory town.

But at least the CPRE will have reserved the green belt so that all the toffs can retain their estates and their maintainence payments from the state, while the real English people suffer problems with high density living, and having to drive miles to out of town superstores because there are no longer any local shops.
Also having to park six streets away because there is no off street parking, and all the roads are full of resident's parked cars. Because new apartments don't provide parking space.

Is part of the answer to this problem the building of more Flats for those who wish to live in one? This would then free up homes where others could live.

Is part of the answer to this problem the building of more Flats for those who wish to live in one? This would then free up homes where others could live.

I'm sorry but that sentence is a little unclear as to its meaning. Can you explain what you mean?

They are actually building more and more apartments and flats at an alarming rate in the city. It seems that building flats is a money making excersise due to property investors from out of town and especially Irish ones, wether anyone lives in them or not. My guess is many of these new apartments will never get anyone living in them. But their parking spaces will be rented out to nearby offices.

I am not sure what the long term effect of this will be. Maybe we will have another property crash, a million of households in negative equity. Maybe the law will be changed so that private accomodation which has been vacant for 5 years can be let to council tennants. Maybe they will be sold to housing trusts to rehouse people who need low rent housing?

At the moment some of these new apartments are priced as high as houses in nice parts of the city. Which to me is ridiculous. I always thought that it was most people's ambition to own a house with a bit of garden. But alas there is hardly any unused land for new houses like this. Many of the best houses in Sheffield are on the outskirts, where fields once stood. Unless we allow this again there will always be a shortage of traditional housing. Accommodation will have to get more dense, noisier and stressful.

I reckon you could have it levelled with a few weeks of serious work (and some heavy machinery).

Yup, like that airport in Osaka in Japan. Mountain is in the way - mountain ends up in the sea. Piece of ****