National Parks

conniegirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 November 2004
Messages
8,787
Visit site
no thanks. I live in a national park. Got no problems living here and certainly dont want big companies building more houses here!.
so what if when we build (and yes we have planning permission to extend the house) we have to put certain slates on the roof and certain specific windows in. Or that we have to paint the house a specific colour. Doesnt bother me and it keeps the area looking as wonderful as when we moved in
 

BBH

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 April 2007
Messages
9,357
Visit site
No thank you, I would like to think there will be at least some areas not developed. People who want to build houses should use infill space and not encroach on further areas of natural beauty.
 

Bosworth

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 February 2006
Messages
5,268
Location
devon
www.ballhillequestrian.co.uk
I have no problem what soever with the national park and we are in one. yes we have regulations to abide by, and yes sometimes they seem petty but what a gorgeous area we live in. and it should be preserved like that for generations to come. House building should be carried out on brownfield sites as there are plenty of those around.
 

ForeverBroke_

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 June 2008
Messages
10,364
Visit site
Brownfield sites??
confused.gif


Whats the point in letting disused buildings/ sites to just rot away to build on the beautiful country side?
 

Rollin

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 March 2008
Messages
4,779
Visit site
I think this is an important issue - people need to live and work in the National Parks and for the young and those on low incomes - housing is an issue - this does not mean - thousands of modern boxes...there is something in between.

I lived a mile from the eastern boundary of a National Park and have a somewhat cynical view of their benefit to the local community. I read in the Sunday Times that the Forestry Commission had received £1.8 million from the EU for 'Access"to my local 'park'. When I asked what facilities had been provided for horse-riders I was told 4 horse-box parking areas would be provided.

The park already had 100 miles of cycle-paths. Out of the 1.8 millions not £1 was spent on way-marking, mapping, horse friendly surfaces, equestrian gates. More money was spent on cycle routes. Every place which could be used for cantering was stripped of greenery and filled with hard-core to accomodate cyclists.

One horse-box parking area was the opposite side of the river to the best horse-riding in the park. £75,000 was spent on a bridge across - no attempt was made to involve the local equestrian access group - as a consequence it was impossible for riders to use the bridge as it was too dangerous.

There were 400 horse-riders on the eastern boundary of this park. In the end we did our own fund-raising for maps, way-marked routes and horse gates. Why did we have to do that when the EU had made £1.8 million available?

As I said I am somewhat cynical about the the benefits of N Parks. This particular debacle was the number one reason for me deciding to move to France where I have miles of off-road riding which has NOT been converted into a cycle-path.
 

Tinkerbee

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 February 2006
Messages
27,545
Location
NI
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
no thanks. I live in a national park. Got no problems living here and certainly dont want big companies building more houses here!.
so what if when we build (and yes we have planning permission to extend the house) we have to put certain slates on the roof and certain specific windows in. Or that we have to paint the house a specific colour. Doesnt bother me and it keeps the area looking as wonderful as when we moved in

[/ QUOTE ]

What she said. I currently live in a National Park and I hate seeing new houses built, some are very sympathetically (sp?
blush.gif
) built and really blend in, but many are ghastly, especially the "affordable homes for local people" ones.
crazy.gif
 

lauraandjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 February 2009
Messages
1,352
Location
Closer to civilisation......
Visit site
Yes National Parks are important, but equally it's important not to let preservation get in the way of progress. People have to live and work in these areas too. They are not just living museums for town people to holiday in.

The planning committees can be downright ridiculous. My neighbour has a large agricultural style barn, constructed in park authority approved slate blue coloured sheeting. Next to this she had 2 very tatty almost falling down wood and tin sheet stables. When she applied for PP to replace said tatty stables with smart new wood ones, planners stipulated that the pitch of the roof facing the road had to be slated, back of roof could be sheeted. Where's the logic in that? Bearing in mind that they are right next to the agricultural building and the original stables were not slated. Property is also situated on a back road.

It's almost impossible to get PP round here to rebuild a derelict house or do barn conversions for residential use, however if you want to make them into holiday lets they are more than willing to let you!

The NP authorities tend to interpret the rules as they see fit, and are extremely inconsistent about it.
 

lauraandjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 February 2009
Messages
1,352
Location
Closer to civilisation......
Visit site
There's also a serious shortage of affordable housing for young people and families. 2 and 3 bedroom houses make perfect holiday lets or second homes, and this affects prices and availability.

There's already a serious exodus of young people from rural areas. It was the first thing I noticed when I moved here, there are very few people of my age group. Plenty of teenagers and plenty of people in their mid 30's and older, but hardly anyone in the 20-30 age group. Who is going to look after the ageing population? Who is going to take over the running of rural businesses and services when people retire?

The blinkered attitude of the national park authority sometimes is not helping the situation.
 

conniegirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 November 2004
Messages
8,787
Visit site
sorry but i dont agree with you lauraandjack we've lived in a national park for 16 years. we do NOT need more houses in our greenfield sites.
There are plenty enough brownfield sites to build so called affordable houses on. I know because my flatmate did his thesis on it and i proof read it for him.

We also run 2 businesses, currently looking at buying 2 possibly 3 more within the course of the next 2 years.
In your neighbours case they will have taken the chance to ensure that the eyesore is replaced with something better.

When we knocked down our stables (200 years old stone built and falling down round our ears. We got planning permission to put up new ones that are much bigger but also look much better and everyone is happy that the old stables are gone. NP authority, local council, local residents, random farmers who have fields round us.

Reacently round us the forristry people have put XC jumps in the woods, new horse friendly gates and deacent well drained footing on all the paths.

I think that if you knocked down some of the horrific brownfield sites and put up new houses then everyone will be happy.
I for one certainly dont want to live in a country where urbanisation takes over and our areas of outstanding natural beauty are ruined (and yes i live in one of them).
 

lauraandjack

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 February 2009
Messages
1,352
Location
Closer to civilisation......
Visit site
Do I assume you will be selling your house and going to live in a town on a brownfield site then? I'm afraid that your post smacks of 'I'm alright Jack' attitude to me!

IMO there is a bit of a difference between relentless urbanisation and allowing a farmer to rebuild a derelict (but existing) house so that their son/daughter with a young family can have a house of their own? I don't know whether you still live with your parents but I know I couldn't cope living with mine in the long term. I am lucky enough to have a house (rented, I might add, no way can I afford to buy) but I know plenty of people of my own age around here who are stuck living with their parents because there simply is no other realistic option. This is fuelled in part by the blinkered attitude of the national park authority.

Maybe your national park authority are better than mine, but certainly around here they apply the rules as they feel like it - see my earlier post about holiday lets. I wish they'd do something for horses too, it's all about the mountain bikers here.

I'm not suggesting they concrete over the countryside, my post wasn't even about building new houses anyway. It was more of a point about the inconsistency of the national park authority around here. If they would give people PP to convert existing buildings into RESIDENTIAL dwellings, not holiday lets they wouldn't need to build new houses anyway!
 

conniegirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 November 2004
Messages
8,787
Visit site
Nope not selling we are staying right here as long as we can! why on earth would i move to a brownfield site when i have a home already in an already built house that has been there for circa 1000 years (well the wall in my bedroom has any way, the rest of the house is about 200 years old).

Affordable housing is a load of tripe anyway, the people who need so called affordable housing can't afford it anyway as the builders whack massive prices on anything they build and the families who need it cant afford those prices.

Must be my national park authority are better then yours then as the farmer up the road from me bought the house next to his (derelict) and got permission to buldoze it and build a new house there with stables and outbuildings. Place looks lovely now!

We like it out here, we moved here because it is quiet and not built up, because we didnt want to live surrounded by others.
 
Top