100ftplus garde? Prescotts going to compulsory purchase it

100ftplus garde? Prescotts going to compulsory purchase it

Postby despair » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:12 pm

Can you believe it .............reported today in the press

If your garden is longer than 100Ft Prescotts Dept will order it to be Compulsory Purchased and have houses built on it

Totally overiding local Planning etc

This strikes of the UK being back in the days of the Russian revolution
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Postby black dog » Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:57 pm

Can you point me in the right direction to the article in question - we are sat on a half acre plot and this has given me grave cause for concern, particularly as there is a lot of ribbon development within our village.
black dog
 
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:28 pm

Postby despair » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:46 pm

Reported in Daily Mail today

will try and scan and post it on the forum

I agree it poses grave concerns for everyone especially those in villages
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Postby Treeman » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:43 pm

despair wrote:Reported in Daily Mail today


That must be true then :?: :?:
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Postby despair » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:31 pm

Who knows

Until its confirmed by D of E

but knowing Prescott nothing whatever would surprise me
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

compulsory purchase

Postby Sadgardener2 » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:43 pm

That'll make my boundary dispute more interesting then! Who will get paid for the 2/3' in contention? Ah ha. We don't know who owns it.

Is that the bit over 100'? Or 55' of 105'? My bit will be handy for the Chemical Works.
Sadgardener2
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Postby subjecttocontract » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:37 am

If your garden is longer than 100Ft Prescotts Dept will order it to be Compulsory Purchased and have houses built on it

Great. We need more houses, there aren't enough and this is one way of creating more land for building them. Hope you lot are not NAMBYs....the Not In My Back Yard brigade. There are to many rich & selfish people with large gardens who would rather others go homeless than help them out.

I expect those up in arms will be the OLDER members of their so called 'communities'.

Don't forget.....you can't take it with you and its not all bad news. Property developers will think Christmas has arrived early.
subjecttocontract
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:06 pm
Location: Essex, Spain, South of France

Postby despair » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:09 am

Here goes the property developer talking !!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because some has a house with 110 ft of garden does not make them rich

Theres virtually no differential betwen houses with pocket handkerchief garden to larger ones especially if theres no way to access the rear garden to build on

Since so many parts of the UK are also suffering acute water shortages its pointless putting in more houses when the services and infrastructure do not have a hope of coping with them
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Postby twig » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:44 am

Let's not forget there's some sort of election coming up, all this is is Tory scaremongering:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?de ... _id=129319


PRESS RELEASE

Prescott's plans to bulldoze Britain's back gardens exposed

Conservatives today opened a new front in 'Vote blue, Go green' local elections campaign, by pointing to new evidence that John Prescott is planning to concrete over Britain's back gardens.

The Government has given £2 million of taxpayers' money to planners and academics to investigate 'urban densification'. Their recommendations include:
• Development in suburban neighbourhoods should be double the current density.
• There is 'considerable potential' for back garden development.
• Back gardens over 30 metres should be sold off for building.
• Green Belt land should be built over and any "local opposition" ignored.

John Prescott is already consulting over new planning rules (so-called 'PPS3') which will impose new higher density targets on new housing developments. In practice, this means councils will be powerless to stop leafy suburban back gardens being ripped up and the plot replaced with blocks of flats. Mr Prescott's current planning rules ('PPG3') already classify gardens as 'brownfield' land, making them easier to concrete over and allowing the Government to produce bogus statistics proclaiming the 'protection' of greenfield sites.

In a visit to Wandsworth as part of the local elections campaign, Eric Pickles MP, the Shadow Minister for Local Government & Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, will say:

"Britain's open spaces are now under real threat from John Prescott's bulldozers. Labour claim they want to regenerate urban sites, yet sneakily they don't even class back gardens as 'green' space. Councils are increasingly powerless to protect against growing suburban sprawl and ugly 'densification'. Local councillors should be able to stop blocks of flats being dumped in neighbourhoods if out of character with the area.

"It is clear that John Prescott has Britain's back gardens in their sights and is bankrolling garden grabbing studies with taxpayers' cash. But Labour fail to understand that young couples and families want new homes with gardens."
/Continued…
Conservatives are supporting a proposed new law by Conservative MP, Greg Clark, which seeks to stop back gardens being classed as brownfield land. It is estimated that two-thirds of all brownfield housing development is now taking place on gardens.

Eric Pickles MP
20/04/2006


I don't see the words "compulsory purchase" anywhere anyway...
twig
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:35 am

Postby despair » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:58 pm

WEll thats the Daily Mail for you
Which is why one needs D of E confirmation

However the whole scenario from 2 jags and his crew STINKS
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Postby subjecttocontract » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:00 pm

Great idea. 3 cheers for the Labour party and down with grumpy old people.
subjecttocontract
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:06 pm
Location: Essex, Spain, South of France

Postby despair » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:06 pm

I know a lot of young people with severeal children who have 400ft gardens and i know they sure will not want this nonsense
despair
 
Posts: 16026
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Postby subjecttocontract » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:36 pm

The world is full of NIMBY's .....the....Not In My Back Yard people.

Those with 100ft + gardens who won't give it up should be ashamed of themselves.

The Labour party will sort you out.....you know who you are.

SHAME ON YOU.

Next you'll all be telling me your a Christians !
subjecttocontract
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:06 pm
Location: Essex, Spain, South of France

Compulsory Purchase Gardens.

Postby Alan Harris » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:08 pm

Dear all

Not very sensible to CP gardens unless access is possible. If the main houses are relativel close it doesn't matter how much one wishes to develop the garden they won't even be able to get to the site to build.

If there is access usually the garden has usually already been sold for serious money by the main house owner.

I have to say that in the cities which require housing to house low income service staff it is rather anti social to hang onto large grounds rather than intensify development just because you can afford to retain the land.

Service workers make it possible for us to receive hospital treatment, Public transport, removal of rubbish, clean streets etc. If the city were just full of wealthy stockbrokers in palacial grounds would that really provide quality of life. How about going back to live in servants?

regards

Alan Harris.
Alan is a consulting engineer specialising in subsidence, tree roots, soils and party wall surveying.
Alan Harris
Expert
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Hayes, Kent

Postby play2day » Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:34 pm

I read this with interest. We have a large garden, that does not make us rich or selfish. We foster children (severly disabled) and although currently I only have three children living with me there are nine outside in the garden right now... If they were not in my garden playing football where it is safe, supervised and not causing any nuisance just think where they could be and what they could be up to! (kicking the ball against you front wall, car or windows perhaps??)

The world is full of NIMBY's .....the....Not In My Back Yard people.

NIMBY thank you! The green space I have there is permanent home to wildlife and provides safe outdoor supervised playspace for the children.

There are to many rich & selfish people with large gardens who would rather others go homeless than help them out.

We welcome homeless children into our home, I do not see the need to build in my garden too! Why not knock down the odd shopping mall? or convert some public buildings? Some cival service work could be done on a PC at home!

The Labour party will sort you out.....you know who you are
. I wonder when they do so what they will do with the severly disabled children i foster?

Next you'll all be telling me your a Christians !

Not personally, but why should faith or lack of it determine the size of my garden?

I think this is certainly just scaremongering. Compulsary purchase of gardens, ridiculous!
play2day
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:53 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
Next

Return to News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest