russbost
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 07:24 AM |
|
|
Airfields are not "Brownfields"
Guys, I know this is somewhat OT, but every site they build more houses on without putting new roads in to relieve congestion makes our little bit of
the planet that more more crowded & frustrating to drive around.
To be brief airfields ALWAYS had "greenfield" status when it came to planning permission, until a few years ago when they opened up
"brownfield" status & "accidentally" opened the loophole that put airfields in as brownfield sites, now I don't know
how many of you take an interest in GA, but even simply on the basis mentioned above this is not a good idea, they've said it was an accident,
they've said it would be changed, but it's been over a decade now & still the same, in that time we have lost a number of airfields to
housing estates & no doubt a few people have made a fortune on the sale of the land which has gone from worth "not much" to
"astronomical"!
Please sign the petition it would be great to get it up to 100,000 signatures, if you feel strongly about it please share it on facebook/twitter etc;
I have
Petition Link
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
|
|
mackei23b
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 07:51 AM |
|
|
Signed
There was a danger of losing our local airfield recently, some great planes get their annuals done there, in addition to some interesting aircraft
being rebuilt including several Stearmans and there was a Spitfire being rebuilt that came form Canada.
Cheers
Ian
|
|
|
HowardB
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 08:13 AM |
|
|
signed too,..
Howard
Fisher Fury was 2000 Zetec - now a 1600 (it Lives again  and goes zoom)
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 08:21 AM |
|
|
We have just learned that our incompetent Council have approved the field at the bottom of my garden for 240 houses, this on top of the 500+
properties already being built in our village. This will increase our population by 40% or so.
The reason ? We are apparently well set with a Doctors, Schools and other infrastructure. Hmm,, yes infrastructure that can just about manage with
what we have at the moment. I think the council called our village an "area of minor services", which basically means they can stuff us
with more houses.
The other Reason ?
Central Bedfordshire Council has no long term housing plan, which is bizarre, because I wonder what the planning committee are being paid for ? So,
we have huge property developers coming along and offering eye watering amounts of money to Farmers for their field (which is what happened to us).
The council object at first, but have lost 3 high appeals to the UK planning officer because they have no plan, this has cost them dearly in court
costs ! At the meeting for our development I overheard someone saying that the Finance director had actually had a word with planning not to reject
it, because they cant afford another court battle that they will lose.
Ironically, the other side of this farmers field is an airfield, which I have always liked as they have some nice planes come in from time to time. I
actually am a little surprised they allowed building in this field as any plane losing power on take off has now lost a huge area to put down, this
only happened a few years ago and they put the plane down on the opposite side on the runway to this field. This view will now be lost as I will just
see another bunch of soulless houses, built on the cheap to maximise profits. So we are stuck with a view of a housing estate instead of open fields
and an increase in traffic and everything that comes with it.
What was apparent is that the public have no say in these matters. Our development here had almost 400 objections, which I am told is very high. This
in the past would have had a lot of sway in the outcome of any decision, but with councils diminishing budgets and in our case committees that cant
organise or plan anything for the future it seems that these things are pretty much a foregone conclusion.
[Edited on 20/10/15 by karlak]
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
mkeats02
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 11:36 AM |
|
|
Karlak, thought you talking about Eastleigh Borough council for a minute there, same story in South Hampshire, all farms being turned into a mass
urban sprawl adding to infrastructure already at breaking point.
Petition signed..
This Monkey's gone to Heaven
Thruth does not exist, it is only Human Opinion
|
|
|
tims31
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 12:29 PM |
|
|
Signed
Build: http://www.martinsfurybuild.co.uk/
|
|
|
kj
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 01:21 PM |
|
|
signed.
Think about it, think about it again and then do it.
|
|
|
jimmyjoebob
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 03:26 PM |
|
|
signed :-)
If at first you don't succeed, hide all evidence you ever tried!
|
|
|
Smoking Frog
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
Signed
|
|
|
JeffHs
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 07:06 PM |
|
|
Done
We lost Hucknall this year and were evicted in February.
|
|
|
Ben_Copeland
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
Their trying to do it to Manston Airport atm. So many dirty tricks and money changing hands it's unreal.
Compulsory purchase order was promised but the same council are making it near impossible for the buyer to actually buy it and keep the airport
open.
[Edited on 20/10/15 by Ben_Copeland]
Ben
Locost Map on Google Maps
Z20LET Astra Turbo, into a Haynes
Roadster
Enter Your Details Here
http://www.facebook.com/EquinoxProducts for all your bodywork needs!
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 08:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...every site they build more houses on without putting new roads in to relieve congestion makes our little
bit of the planet that more more crowded & frustrating to drive around.
I've been designing houses for well over 30 years, but I've yet to come up with one that can drive a car. Or visit the doctor, or use the
local school. What do you think I'm doing wrong, Russ? 
Houses don't increase congestion, or swell the population. They just provide somewhere to live for people who already exist.
Most planning applications come with enormous 'Section 106' payments (AKA legalised extortion) attached to them; it may have escaped your
notice, but in these times of austerity measures on public spending, just about the only new infrastructure that's going in (yes,
including roads, Russ) is the stuff that's being funded directly by developers.
Prevent development and you don't prevent additional congestion or pressure on public services - those are generated by people, not
houses - all you do is force house prices to spiral out of everyone's reach due to basic laws of supply and demand, and starve the one source of
infrastructure funding that's still available.
Of course, it's the 'our little bit of the planet' that everyone is really worried about. Everyone wants people to
have somewhere to live - just so long as it's nowhere close to where they are. 
|
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
Cotswolds????
Bit rich from the luxury of the COTSWOLDS!!!
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 09:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
I've been designing houses for well over 30 years, but I've yet to come up with one that
can accomodate a modern car in the garage?
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by locogeoff
...can accomodate a modern car in the garage?
No, that's easy, and I've designed and built plenty.
Your problem is that you can't afford one because:
a) They require bigger plots, which are expensive because land prices are inflated by the NIMBYs preventing development wherever they can, and;
b) You should have worked harder at school. 
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 20/10/15 at 10:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Surrey Dave
Bit rich from the luxury of the COTSWOLDS!!!
Does the fact that I've built houses on several former airfields IN the Cotswolds count for me, or against me?
Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference to the sort of rabid, foamy-at-the-mouth, Daily Mail-reading NIMBY's that get worked up at
this sort of thing, but the basis of that petition is quite simply incorrect, anyway.
'Brownfield' is a colloquial expression. The correct Planning terminology is 'previously developed land', and the
legal/Planning definition for it, and hence its development status, has never changed.
What the ill-informed people who have started that petition are getting themselves in a tizzy over is a re-writing of the Planning Policy Guidance.
The old Planning Policy Guidance note on on Housing (known as PPG3) said:
"However, this does not mean that the whole area of the curtilage should therefore be redeveloped. For example, where the footprint of a
building only occupies a proportion of a site of which the remainder is open land (such as at an airfield or a hospital) the whole site should not
normally be developed to the boundary of the curtilage. The local planning authority should make a judgement about site layout in this context,
bearing in mind other planning considerations, such as policies for the protection of open space and playing fields or development in the countryside,
how the site relates to the surrounding area, and requirements for on-site open space, buffer strips, landscaped areas, etc."
The whole point of the new Planning Policy Statement on Housing, which replaced it ( known as PPS3) was to simplify the document in its
entirety, and the bit that deals with Previously Developed Land now says:
"There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the
curtilage should be developed."
Certainly, the specific examples of airfields and hospitals have been omitted, but the same basic principle still stands. Airfields and
Hospitals were only quoted in PPG3 as examples, because they are a readily understood and typical form of previous development where the
developed area is only a small part of the overall curtilage. They might as well have used schools, with their playing fields, military barracks or
open prisons - all equally valid, and all STILL subject to the same considerations in Planning terms.
To suggest that airfields and hospitals once had some sort of special, intrinsically 'protected' or 'greenfield' status is
complete and utter bollocks, as is the suggestion that their status in Planning law has changed.
IT HASN'T.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 21/10/15 at 07:14 AM |
|
|
"I've been designing houses for well over 30 years, but I've yet to come up with one that can drive a car. Or visit the doctor, or
use the local school. What do you think I'm doing wrong,"
You're doing nothing wrong, however to suggest that building a significant no. of houses in a given area where formerly there were none is not
going to change traffic patterns is just "plane" (geddit! ) daft - our roads are heavily congested at almost any time of day, worse down
here than up North, but still bad as soon as you head towards a city up there, you put up a new housing estate & bingo, more cars in that specific
area, more traffic around the shops, schools, doctors etc., unfortunately it has NO significant reduction in traffic anywhere else as the chances of a
whole given load of people relocating to the new housing seem pretty slim!!!
I'm not a NIMBY I don't have an airstrip in my back garden (if I did that would at least solve the problem at one end of the journey), but
I don't want to see sites which were originally agricultural, were redesignated as an airfield, which involved building a few buildings &
possibly roads in what is a sizeable area & continuing to provide a habitat for all sorts of animals, & then suddenly, because it has lost
it's greenbelt status (which it most certainly did hold previously, & despite your previous post the laws HAVE changed) it can have a
housing estate put up on it - how can that possibly be right?
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 21/10/15 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost... to suggest that building a significant no. of houses in a given area where formerly there were none is
not going to change traffic patterns is just "plane" (geddit! ) daft
And a significant piece of documentation that supports any Planning Application is a 'Transport Assessment', which surveys and assesses
demands on local roads infrastructure. If it's not adequate, the application will be refused unless the developer pays for the necessary upgrade
works (Google 'Section 278 agreements' ), phased to work with the grown of the developement (for example, there may be 'trigger
points' built into the conditions of the approval that say that ceratin works have to be implemented by the 1st, 50th, 100th, or whatever,
occupation of dwellings on the site).
Ditto local services like schools and healthcare infrastructure - paid for by means of legal agreements known as a 'Section
106's'.
Along with an awful lot of houses, I've been responsible for the constructuion of numerous new roads, schools, healthcare clinics,
community centres, off-site road improvements, etc. etc. Even contruibutions for the upgrade of loacl cemetaries, because of all the extra dead people
my developments will apparently be generating. None of this would have happened if it weren't for the evil, money-grabbing developers who dare
to consider building new homes for people in your locality.
But all this is completely irrelevant to your original post: contrary to the beliefs of whichever f***wit originally submitted that petition, there
has NEVER been any greenfield status to airfields and the situation has not changed.
Airfields have ALWAYS been brownfield sites, and Planning Authorities have ALWAYS had to consider the appropriate level of development to allow on
them, compared to their context and previous amount of development.
You're petitioning to reverse a 'change' that never happened.
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 21/10/15 at 01:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by russbost... to suggest that building a significant no. of houses in a given area where formerly there were none is
not going to change traffic patterns is just "plane" (geddit! ) daft
And a significant piece of documentation that supports any Planning Application is a 'Transport Assessment', which surveys and assesses
demands on local roads infrastructure. If it's not adequate, the application will be refused unless the developer pays for the necessary upgrade
works (Google 'Section 278 agreements' ), phased to work with the grown of the developement (for example, there may be 'trigger
points' built into the conditions of the approval that say that ceratin works have to be implemented by the 1st, 50th, 100th, or whatever,
occupation of dwellings on the site).
Ditto local services like schools and healthcare infrastructure - paid for by means of legal agreements known as a 'Section
106's'.
Along with an awful lot of houses, I've been responsible for the constructuion of numerous new roads, schools, healthcare clinics,
community centres, off-site road improvements, etc. etc. Even contruibutions for the upgrade of loacl cemetaries, because of all the extra dead people
my developments will apparently be generating. None of this would have happened if it weren't for the evil, money-grabbing developers who dare
to consider building new homes for people in your locality.
But all this is completely irrelevant to your original post: contrary to the beliefs of whichever f***wit originally submitted that petition, there
has NEVER been any greenfield status to airfields and the situation has not changed.
Airfields have ALWAYS been brownfield sites, and Planning Authorities have ALWAYS had to consider the appropriate level of development to allow on
them, compared to their context and previous amount of development.
You're petitioning to reverse a 'change' that never happened.
Sam, do you actually believe what you have just written? I have been involved with many planning proposals over the years & have seen many
contrary, contradictory & downright stupid plans passed, so if you truly believe the above, then you must be living in cloud cuckoo land, far be
it from me to suggest that anyone might ever be biased by the enormous sums of money that can be involved!
Yes, airfields have always been brownfield sites, so perhaps my original post was not correctly worded, would you like me to amend it to read
"airfields should not be regarded as brownfields"?, however, they were, under the previous legislation, REGARDED & TREATED as
greenfield sites, & that is what has changed - I believe about 13 years ago & there have been a number of promises to amend the legislation
that changed it & this has never been done. I don't dispute that the petition may be incorrectly worded, I didn't write it! However,
the LAA & CAA have both requested us to write to our MP's etc. with regard to the changes, so if you believe no change has happened I can
only suggest have a chat with the LAA & CAA & see why they think it has. To call the original submitter of the petition a f***wit (obviously
that would be fastwit?) seems a little harsh to say the least, & there have been many airfield closures over the past decade or so which I
don't believe would have happened without the aforementioned changes taking place.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is NOT easier to get planning permission on virtually ANY site nowadays than it was 10 or 15 years ago, simply
due to the pressure of needing additional housing - yes we need more houses, do we want them built on airfields? - well judging by the other posters
responses I would say that's a definite NO from those on here!
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
SJ
|
| posted on 21/10/15 at 02:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
And a significant piece of documentation that supports any Planning Application is a 'Transport Assessment', which surveys and assesses
demands on local roads infrastructure. If it's not adequate, the application will be refused unless the developer pays for the necessary upgrade
works (Google 'Section 278 agreements' ), phased to work with the grown of the developement (for example, there may be 'trigger
points' built into the conditions of the approval that say that ceratin works have to be implemented by the 1st, 50th, 100th, or whatever,
occupation of dwellings on the site).
Ditto local services like schools and healthcare infrastructure - paid for by means of legal agreements known as a 'Section 106's'.
Sam you should be on the stage with comedy like that! Do you really believe any of that is ever actually taken account of?
The part of North London I just moved out of was already massively challenged in terms of roads, schools, hospitals etc. I've not seen any new
ones being built since thousands of extra flats were constructed in a 2 mile radius.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 21/10/15 at 05:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
I have been involved with many planning proposals over the years & have seen many contrary, contradictory & downright stupid plans passed, so
if you truly believe the above, then you must be living in cloud cuckoo land, far be it from me to suggest that anyone might ever be biased by the
enormous sums of money that can be involved!
Then you need to speak to your elected members.
I freely acknowledge that many of them are as ill-educated and incompetent in Planning matters as (no disrespect) you yourself are, and yes, when
that's the case, professionals such as myself will run rings round them in the best interests of our employers. Can you blame us for that?
We have a job to do, and we do it to the best of our ability. The 'system' is actually remarkable fair and equitable, if you've got
competent people administering and taking decisions based upon it.
Similarly, if you're not seeing the £millions in S106 contributions from developers being translated into the infrastructure it was intended to
pay for, you need to speak to the Local Authorities who are the recipients of that money...
You get the government you deserve.
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...however, they were, under the previous legislation, REGARDED & TREATED as greenfield sites, &
that is what has changed
NO THEY WERE NOT
That's an absolute fallacy. I was building on old airfields and hospitals 30 years ago. I'm still building on old airfields
and hospitals, and I can tell you that the planning approach and constraints haven't altered one iota.
Actually, that's a lie: the two big things that have changed (but on all sites, not just airfields) is that we're now expected to provide
on-site SUDs that can mean there's a lot more green space on the site than we'd have had to provide in the old days, and we now have
things called 'Landscape Visual Impact Assessments' that give a lot more analysis to the intensity and visibility of development in the
surrounding landscape.
The formula for calculating open space requirements (known as 'the 6-acre standard' ) hasn't changed since Noah were a lad,
though.
But lets be clear: they ALWAYS HAVE been treated as 'brownfield' land.
quote:
Originally posted by russbost...Are you seriously suggesting that it is NOT easier to get planning permission on virtually ANY site
nowadays than it was 10 or 15 years ago...
HELL YES!!!
I most certainly AM!!!
I can remember (back when I were a lad, and all this were green fields... before they built houses all over it ) when a Planning Application for a
major residential proposal consisted of a Site Layout Plan with the drainage outfalls marked on it, and a set of plans and elevations of the proposed
house types. That's it.
These days, the package of consultant reports and documents for a scheme of identical size will fill sevaral box files, cost a 6-figure sum in
consultant fees to prepare, and be accompanied by a huge shopping list on the Section 106 agreement that will cost the developer £millions.... all of
which has to be added to the subsequent cost to purchasers of the houses.
[Edited on 21/10/15 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 07:05 AM |
|
|
Sam, as ever I bow to your obviously greater knowledge, that your knowledge is greater than that of the CAA, the LAA & the entire GA community who
all believe in this complete & utter fallacy must, I guess, just prove it's all a big conspiracy theory.
I hope you thoroughly enjoy the pleasures of your kitcar on roads that are evermore congested & where new estates have no affect on local traffic,
GA or anything else ..................
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
karlak
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 07:46 AM |
|
|
The 2 hour planning meeting I recently sat though must have been part of a parallel universe I think, cos it didn't sound anything like what has
been described in this topic. The infrastructure shortfalls were completely ignored with shallow promises that they will be rectified in the future.
Doctors, Schools, roads and so on should be upgraded and in place BEFORE planning is passed. As we all know, afterwards the promises from the
developer suddenly disappear - this has already happened on our first build in the village with a promised school expansion completely forgotten. In
our recent developer case a new school is required, so the developer has allocated Land for a new lower school to be built on (not the building
itself), but the Education Authority have not funded the build as yet and there is no sign they will !
So we will have over 700 houses built and no school for the Kids to go to. Brilliant! Exactly the same goes for our already overstretched Doctor
surgery.
The whole of our meeting was a sham, it was all about not being taken to an appeal by the developer, who would win for a 4th time because our council
planners are incompetent. Meanwhile, we and other neighbours will lose value on our properties, the farmer makes a fortune, the developers walk away
with a pretty penny as well, no doubt house planners will be licking their lips and not to mention the backhanders going on.
That is the truth about planning !
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 08:09 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by karlak
The 2 hour planning meeting I recently sat though must have been part of a parallel universe I think, cos it didn't sound anything like what has
been described in this topic. The infrastructure shortfalls were completely ignored with shallow promises that they will be rectified in the future.
Doctors, Schools, roads and so on should be upgraded and in place BEFORE planning is passed. As we all know, afterwards the promises from the
developer suddenly disappear - this has already happened on our first build in the village with a promised school expansion completely forgotten. In
our recent developer case a new school is required, so the developer has allocated Land for a new lower school to be built on (not the building
itself), but the Education Authority have not funded the build as yet and there is no sign they will !
So we will have over 700 houses built and no school for the Kids to go to. Brilliant! Exactly the same goes for our already overstretched Doctor
surgery.
The whole of our meeting was a sham, it was all about not being taken to an appeal by the developer, who would win for a 4th time because our council
planners are incompetent. Meanwhile, we and other neighbours will lose value on our properties, the farmer makes a fortune, the developers walk away
with a pretty penny as well, no doubt house planners will be licking their lips and not to mention the backhanders going on.
That is the truth about planning !
No, No, NO!!! I'm sure you have it completely wrong! Sam knows!!
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 22/10/15 at 09:14 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
I hope you thoroughly enjoy the pleasures of your kitcar on roads that are evermore congested & where new estates have no affect on local traffic,
GA or anything else ..................
Errr... 'pleasures'.... I personally extract no pleasure from the use of our roads. What few are not congested, are deathtraps due to the
actions of others or heavily policed by camera zealots. Even the 'local' roads are now made completely unusable in my environment due to
traffic calming measures. Good grief man, how can words such as pleasures and road use be combined.
The kit car gained slicks and lost it's road going 'ability' a long time ago, my last ever motorcycle was taken out by the usual
inattentive/distracted deathbox driver (and another part of me too). I am now entirely white van man.... except at weekends.
We need houses, we also need power generation facilities and factories, along with the political will to do it all. NIMBY's are destroying the
country, they, with the all the money, time and focus also are the ones that vote...
|
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
