And is there honey still for tea?
Steve Kimberley
"THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's new
structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields beside
Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
County councillor Anne Kent has drafted a petition against the suggestion as
follows: "We the undersigned call on the county council to reject the
recommendation of the Government inspector that land to the west of
Trumpington Road, adjoining Grantchester Meadows, should be included in the
county council's revised draft structure plan as an additional site for
housing.
"Building on this green space would have a seriously damaging effect on an
area of outstanding natural beauty which is enjoyed by all the residents of
Cambridge and the surrounding villages." Contact Anne on (01223) 353811 or
email her at anne...@cambridgeshire.gov.uk You can also sign the petition
at Chato Arthur Florist in Anstey Way."
Steve
Robert Macmillan
"Steve Kimberley" <sj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b61k49$gh4$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> From Cambridge News Online:
>
> "THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's new
> structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields beside
> Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
>
> County councillor Anne Kent has drafted a petition against the
suggestion as
> follows: "We the undersigned call on the county council to reject the
> recommendation of the Government inspector that land to the west of
> Trumpington Road, adjoining Grantchester Meadows, should be included in
the
> county council's revised draft structure plan as an additional site for
> housing.
>
> "Building on this green space would have a seriously damaging effect on
an
> area of outstanding natural beauty which is enjoyed by all the residents
of
> Cambridge and the surrounding villages."
And, what's more, it's right in the mddle of our Back Yard.
Contact Anne on (01223) 353811 or
> email her at anne...@cambridgeshire.gov.uk You can also sign the
petition
> at Chato Arthur Florist in Anstey Way."
Robert
Meldrew of Meldreth
<sj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>"THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's new
>structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields beside
>Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
It was only a matter of time. And there have been frequent calls in this
newsgroup for the rules on green belt to be scrapped, in order to attack
the housing shortage.
Put me down for a house with a river view :-)
--
"It used to be that what a writer did was type a bit and the stare out of the
window a bit, type a bit, stare out of the window a bit. Networked computers
make these two activities converge, because now the thing you type on and the
window you stare out of are the same thing" - Douglas Adams 28/1/99.
Patrick Gosling
Meldrew of Meldreth <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>It was only a matter of time. And there have been frequent calls in this
>newsgroup for the rules on green belt to be scrapped, in order to attack
>the housing shortage.
The frequent calls have come mainly from one Robert Macmillan (not of
this parish), as I recall. [ I've agreed, up to the point that I
wouldn't object to seeing farmland being made available for housing if
equal (or greater) amounts of farmland were simultaneously turned into
"commons". That's unlikely to be what happens, sadly ]
-patrick.
Mark Ayliffe
Meldrew of Meldreth <rol...@perry.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> In message <b61k49$gh4$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Steve Kimberley
><sj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>>"THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's new
>>structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields beside
>>Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
>
> It was only a matter of time. And there have been frequent calls in this
> newsgroup for the rules on green belt to be scrapped, in order to attack
> the housing shortage.
>
> Put me down for a house with a river view :-)
s/river view/flooding problem/
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | Growing old is mandatory;
to reply by email. | growing up is optional.
www.ayliffe.org |
Graeme Barnes
> From Cambridge News Online:
>
> "THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's
> new structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields
> beside Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
That whole area floods at least once every spring/autumn, probably saving
Cambridge town centre from a similar fate. They could possibly build on the
slopey bit near Trumpington Road but on the flat fields?!
Graeme
Jon Boston
> In message <b61k49$gh4$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Steve Kimberley
> <sj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>> "THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's
>> new structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields
>> beside Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
>
> It was only a matter of time. And there have been frequent calls in
> this newsgroup for the rules on green belt to be scrapped, in order
> to attack the housing shortage.
>
That would be the housing shortage for rich people?
Chris Brown
Steve Kimberley <sj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>"Building on this green space would have a seriously damaging effect on an
>area of outstanding natural beauty which is enjoyed by all the residents of
>Cambridge and the surrounding villages." Contact Anne on (01223) 353811 or
>email her at anne...@cambridgeshire.gov.uk You can also sign the petition
>at Chato Arthur Florist in Anstey Way."
Green space? Looked like farmland to me last time I was strolling that way.
If there was a footbridge halfway along Grantchester Meadows and said "green
space" was available for people to use as a pleasant walk from south
Cambridge to Grantchester then there might be something in this, but what's
there at the moment is just farmland. I say let's see the development
proposals first. If it's done sympathetically, with the river frontage
remaining relatively undeveloped and even claimed for the public, then the
area might even be improved.
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}
Alan
I'm not sure exactly where the proposed build is to be from that
description, but just hope we have learned enough lessons, and any flood
plain and underlying water table in that area is not affected.
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam.com' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email
Robert Macmillan
> In article <QTkyseCz...@perry.co.uk>,
> Meldrew of Meldreth <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> It was only a matter of time. And there have been frequent calls in
>> this newsgroup for the rules on green belt to be scrapped, in order
>> to attack the housing shortage.
>
> The frequent calls have come mainly from one Robert Macmillan (not of
> this parish), as I recall.
Ooh, fame. Have my opinions been generalised into half a concensus?
> [ I've agreed, up to the point that I
> wouldn't object to seeing farmland being made available for housing if
> equal (or greater) amounts of farmland were simultaneously turned into
> "commons". That's unlikely to be what happens, sadly ]
And I think your modification of my generalisation is a good one.
Robert
Steve Slatcher
> Steve Kimberley wrote:
>> From Cambridge News Online:
>>
>> "THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's
>> new structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields
>> beside Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
>
> That whole area floods at least once every spring/autumn
Quite. There is a good reason why Trumpington Rd was built where it was -
it is/was just above the flood plain.
Patrick Gosling
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>If there was a footbridge halfway along Grantchester Meadows and said "green
>space" was available for people to use as a pleasant walk from south
>Cambridge to Grantchester then there might be something in this, but what's
>there at the moment is just farmland. I say let's see the development
>proposals first. If it's done sympathetically, with the river frontage
>remaining relatively undeveloped and even claimed for the public, then the
>area might even be improved.
I'll go with that - develop the first third of the space starting from
Trumpington Road as housing, and turn the other two thirds into "common"
meadows to match those on the other bank.
The real danger is that unless someone manages to arrange suitable
covenants, with a party who can be relied on not to backslide, there's
nothing to stop the housing creeping down to the river, as the planners
succumb to pressure to do so.
-patrick.
The Natural Philosopher
> On or about Fri, 28 Mar 2003 at 14:19 GMT,
> Meldrew of Meldreth <rol...@perry.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>
>>In message <b61k49$gh4$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Steve Kimberley
>><sj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>>"THE Government inspector has recommended that the county council's new
>>>structure plan should allow houses to be built on the fields beside
>>>Grantchester Meadows between Trumpington Road and the river.
>>>
>>It was only a matter of time. And there have been frequent calls in this
>>newsgroup for the rules on green belt to be scrapped, in order to attack
>>the housing shortage.
>>
>>Put me down for a house with a river view :-)
>>
>
> s/river view/flooding problem/
>
Nah. Build it at lesast three feet higher than the land with a raised
parking space - or put a bank around the whole site.
You too can be an inverted isalnd in a sea of troubles :-)
>
Gropius Riftwynde
> space" was available for people to use as a pleasant walk from south
> Cambridge to Grantchester then there might be something in this, but what's
> there at the moment is just farmland.
Even better, why not build a covered cycle bridge or monorail right
over the meadows, and then the populace can cross it in comfort and
chuckle at the pathetic buggers down below, suffering the undeveloped
farmland and bumbling around in punts. Surely there must be enough
space for a park and ride in there, too, and maybe another
supermarket.
GR
Tim Illingworth
<166639bb.03032...@posting.google.com>
rift...@yahoo.com "Gropius Riftwynde" wrote:
"Grantchester Meadows Theme Park". Just what we need...
Tim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Illingworth t...@smof.demon.co.uk Go not to Usenet for advice, for
Coveney, tim...@compuserve.com they will say both 'No' and 'Yes'
Cambs, UK tim...@cix.co.uk and 'Try Another Newsgroup'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Grant
> In article <b61k49$gh4$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> Steve Kimberley <sj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >"Building on this green space would have a seriously damaging effect on an
> >area of outstanding natural beauty which is enjoyed by all the residents of
> >Cambridge and the surrounding villages." Contact Anne on (01223) 353811 or
> >email her at anne...@cambridgeshire.gov.uk You can also sign the petition
> >at Chato Arthur Florist in Anstey Way."
>
> Green space? Looked like farmland to me last time I was strolling that way.
I think they are being slightly sneaky here. The "green space"
being proposed for building is the off-limits arable farmland
on the east side. The "area of outstanding natural beauty...
enjoyed by all the residents" is Grantchester Meadows on the
west side. So they would seem to be saying that the "natural
beauty" would be spoiled by having a view of houses rather than
farmland.
> If it's done sympathetically, with the river frontage
> remaining relatively undeveloped and even claimed for the public, then the
> area might even be improved.
Indeed, it could be like Stourbridge Common. I doubt the public
could claim a path all along the river though - at the Trumpington
end it is pretty much the grounds of Trumpington Hall.
Meldrew of Meldreth
<alg...@myrealbox.com> writes
>The "area of outstanding natural beauty...
>enjoyed by all the residents" is Grantchester Meadows on the
>west side. So they would seem to be saying that the "natural
>beauty" would be spoiled by having a view of houses rather than
>farmland.
I think I'd meet them halfway. The farmland (inaccessible though it is)
still has aspects of natural beauty. And yes, if it was built upon you'd
have a worse view from the otherwise unspoilt Grantchester Meadows side.
The Natural Philosopher
For heavens sake! dredge the whole lot out and make a speedboat marina:
The surplus soil can be sold as top quality topsoil or to raise land
levels for flood prevention om teh hiogh cl;ass golf courtse and marian
facilityies to be buikt behind it...
:-)
> GR
>
Gropius Riftwynde
> In message <5765b025.03033...@posting.google.com>, Al Grant
> <alg...@myrealbox.com> writes
> >The "area of outstanding natural beauty...
> >enjoyed by all the residents" is Grantchester Meadows on the
> >west side. So they would seem to be saying that the "natural
> >beauty" would be spoiled by having a view of houses rather than
> >farmland.
>
> I think I'd meet them halfway. The farmland (inaccessible though it is)
> still has aspects of natural beauty. And yes, if it was built upon you'd
> have a worse view from the otherwise unspoilt Grantchester Meadows side.
Hah! Exactly. It's a less extreme (but not much less extreme) version
of the old joke (at least, in innocent days, we always thought is was
a surreal joke) that if you built a tower block in the middle of
Grantchester Meadows, then you could live in the tower and appreciate
the beauty of the meadows (beauty being in short supply in the
Cambridge area) - without having the faintest notion of the fact that
everyone outside the tower block would have a very ugly view. I
despair. Kick them in the goolies, is my advice.
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
> I think I'd meet them halfway. The farmland (inaccessible though it is)
> still has aspects of natural beauty. And yes, if it was built upon you'd
> have a worse view from the otherwise unspoilt Grantchester Meadows side.
And why would anyone want to go to the 'unspoilt Grantchester Meadows
side' any more if all they can see from there is a load of people
peering at them them from houses that have been built to meet them
half way?
What is it with Cambridge that for the last 15 years it has sought to
destroy itself environmentally in ways that even the 60s never managed
to do? I know of no other historic city that has done this in recent
times. Most of the others, such as Bath, Oxford, etc., are
successfully preserving and restoring what they've got.
GR
Tim Ward
news:166639bb.0303...@posting.google.com...
>
> What is it with Cambridge that for the last 15 years it has sought to
> destroy itself environmentally in ways that even the 60s never managed
> to do? I know of no other historic city that has done this in recent
> times. Most of the others, such as Bath, Oxford, etc., are
> successfully preserving and restoring what they've got.
Um, surely that road to the east of Bath did actually get built in the end,
didn't it? I'm sure I remember driving down it a few dozen times.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Al Grant
> I think I'd meet them halfway. The farmland (inaccessible though it is)
> still has aspects of natural beauty. And yes, if it was built upon you'd
> have a worse view from the otherwise unspoilt Grantchester Meadows side.
Otherwise unspoilt? It's a rather ordinary set of paddocks with a
tarmac path through it and a regular stream of joggers and cyclists,
and full of drunken students in summer. As for the idea that the
farmland has natural beauty, well eye of the beholder and all that
but in most of the rural UK it would be a positive eyesore.
Even in the neighbourhood of Cambridge there are areas of far more
genuine natural merit - e.g. the fens out past Fulbourn or Teversham.
Be honest, Grantchester Meadows is really just a "rec" for those
well-heeled enough to live in the vicinity.
Meldrew of Meldreth
>well-heeled enough to live in the vicinity.
Exactly, but it's so full of joggers, cyclists and drunken students (not
to mention cowpats) I didn't go there very much even when I did live
nearby. It's simply a rather congested path to The Orchard.
Meldrew of Meldreth
Riftwynde <rift...@yahoo.com> writes
>And why would anyone want to go to the 'unspoilt Grantchester Meadows
>side' any more if all they can see from there is a load of people
>peering at them them from houses that have been built to meet them
>half way?
Sure, the experience on the west side would be reduced, but not to such
an extent that people wouldn't go there at all.
Steve Hunt
> tarmac path through it and a regular stream of joggers and cyclists,
> and full of drunken students in summer. As for the idea that the
> farmland has natural beauty, well eye of the beholder and all that
> but in most of the rural UK it would be a positive eyesore.
>
> Even in the neighbourhood of Cambridge there are areas of far more
> genuine natural merit - e.g. the fens out past Fulbourn or Teversham.
> Be honest, Grantchester Meadows is really just a "rec" for those
> well-heeled enough to live in the vicinity.
I disagree with all of that For one thing, it may "only" be farmland but
I'd sure as hell rather see farmland then yet another housing estate
when out for a walk along the river. In fact most country walks in the
UK are over/through/in sight of farmland - that does not equate to
them being "not unspoiled". To suggest that farmland is no better
to look at than a housing estate is utter crap.
Second, Fulbourn and Teversham may or may not have areas of more
"natural merit" but that does not necessarily make them any better for a
peaceful walk away from built-up areas.
And your subtext seems to be that it's OK to develop any non-built-up
bits of Cambridge except the best one one or two (fsvo best).
As for it being a rec for those rich enough to live nearby, we cycle
there from Chesterton.
-- Steve
Al Grant
> > Otherwise unspoilt? It's a rather ordinary set of paddocks with a
> > tarmac path through it and a regular stream of joggers and cyclists,
> > and full of drunken students in summer. As for the idea that the
> > farmland has natural beauty, well eye of the beholder and all that
> > but in most of the rural UK it would be a positive eyesore.
>
> I'd sure as hell rather see farmland then yet another housing estate
> when out for a walk along the river.
It seems a bit selfish to have your favourite green space _and_
want private land on the other bank protected just for the view,
when other people are losing their actual green spaces.
I just cannot see the point in protecting this relatively
central area and having Cambridge continue to expand to the
east of the city, further and further away from central
facilities. This particular part of the green belt (i.e.
the fields on the east bank) is nothing special and makes
more sense to develop than almost any other part of it.
> And your subtext seems to be that it's OK to develop any non-built-up
> bits of Cambridge except the best one one or two (fsvo best).
Not at all. Personally I'm not convinced there is any housing
shortage that can't be resolved by building on brownfield sites
and by making sure all the very large amount of affordable housing
owned by the council was available to the people who are willing
and able to work in Cambridge but can't afford to live here.
But if housing is to be built on green belt, building on Arbury
Camps or NIAB is a greater loss of local green belt to more people
than building on the fields opposite Grantchester Meadows would be.
Steve Hunt
> want private land on the other bank protected just for the view,
> when other people are losing their actual green spaces.
No it isn't. It would be selfish if I was a proponent of
someone else losing their green space, but I am not.
The point about Grantchester meadows and the land
that you can see from it is that it's one of the few
places in Cambridge where not only are you *on*
a green space but you can *see* mainly open
space (albeit farmland). The same can't be said of
the commons (nice though they are).
> Not at all. Personally I'm not convinced there is any housing
> shortage that can't be resolved by building on brownfield sites
Indeed. Or indeed by encouraging some businesses to go
and set up where there is cheaper housing. Politicians and
planners and developers need to be stopped before they
turn Cambridge into a metropolis.
-- Steve
Gropius Riftwynde
> tarmac path through it and a regular stream of joggers and cyclists,
> and full of drunken students in summer. As for the idea that the
> farmland has natural beauty, well eye of the beholder and all that
> but in most of the rural UK it would be a positive eyesore.
*Sigh* I am amazed that I am having to type this. Ignoring the joggers
and drunken students hyperbole, yes, there are more beautiful places
elewhere, but not within easy walking distance from central Cambridge.
All of it,; not just the watermeadows. In addition, it has
historically been enjoyed as a beauty spot, albeit spoiled a bit by
the nearness of the M11 and its traffic noise. It is an
internationally recognized beauty spot, even if a lot of people only
know of it from the Umagumma album! Internationally recognized beauty
spots aren't all up to the standard of the Cheddar Gorge or the Isle
of Skye.
But positive eyesore, is it? In what way? Have you ever driven through
Bedfordshire?
> Even in the neighbourhood of Cambridge there are areas of far more
> genuine natural merit - e.g. the fens out past Fulbourn or Teversham.
> Be honest, Grantchester Meadows is really just a "rec" for those
> well-heeled enough to live in the vicinity.
You can't take your family for a short and mostly attractive Sunday
afternoon walk from central Cambridge to Fulbourn or Teversham. (I
REALLY can't believe I have to spell this out). Furthermore, I have
never seen a sign that says something like: "Grantchester Meadows,
This is a local rec for local people. Strangers and low income
visitors please keep out." I might point out as a minor comment that
by no means all the people who live in the vicinity are well heeled,
either, but I feel I am totally wasting my time pointing anything out.
I am mightily relieved now that I took the very reluctant decision to
get the hell out of Cambridge. There seems to be no-one in a position
of any influence who can stop it disembowelling itself. As I said
elsewhere, what is it with Cambridge compared with other comparable
cities (including those in mainland Europe) that in recent times it
should be so indifferent to what it's got, and so determined to turn
itself into a residents' and visitors' nightmare?
GR
Mary Pegg
> You can't take your family for a short and mostly attractive Sunday
> afternoon walk from central Cambridge to Fulbourn or Teversham.
You can't take them on a punt, either.
Al Grant
> You can't take your family for a short and mostly attractive Sunday
> afternoon walk from central Cambridge to Fulbourn or Teversham. (I
> REALLY can't believe I have to spell this out).
Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
> I might point out as a minor comment that
> by no means all the people who live in the vicinity are well heeled,
> either, but I feel I am totally wasting my time pointing anything out.
It's a very expensive area, especially Chaucer Road, Latham Road,
Trumpington Road etc. That's just a fact. Sure, there may be
impoverished students renting in Newnham but they can go play in
their college gardens, can't they?
> I am mightily relieved now that I took the very reluctant decision to
> get the hell out of Cambridge. There seems to be no-one in a position
> of any influence who can stop it disembowelling itself.
On the contrary my point is that there will be plenty of people
in positions of influence protesting against this proposal - many
of them, no doubt, Pink Floyd fans - with, as a result, development
being done on _far more locally valuable_ areas of green belt in
areas where nobody of influence lives. As I said elsewhere, I would
rather there was no green-belt development at all. It is precisely
the residents' interests, rather than those of those who merely
recognize "international beauty spots" from far off, that I think
should take priority.
Robert Macmillan
"Steve Hunt" <st...@pSoPgAgMle.org> wrote in message
> > Not at all. Personally I'm not convinced there is any housing
> > shortage that can't be resolved by building on brownfield sites
Meantime the price of a quarter of an acre of building land is, how much
exactly?
> Indeed. Or indeed by encouraging some businesses to go
> and set up where there is cheaper housing. Politicians and
> planners and developers need to be stopped before they
> turn Cambridge into a metropolis.
I'm not sure what you meant by that. Cambridge is a town, oh god, city or
town. The question is whether some of the land around Cambridge could be
developed into housing without spoiling the world too much. Take a map of
Cambridge and area surrounding it to, say, 15 miles. Draw circles or
whatever around the bits which are towns and villages and not greenfield.
Calculate what percentage your ringed area is. Now imagine dropping
another Cambridge somewhere in the greenfield area. (No-one is proposing
doing this, mind.) See what difference this makes to the split between
urban/rural percentage use of land.
People seem to think that roads and buildings dominate the countryside.
They no more do so than oases dominate deserts.
Robert
Robert Macmillan
>
> *Sigh* I am amazed that I am having to type this. Ignoring the joggers
> and drunken students hyperbole, yes, there are more beautiful places
> elewhere, but not within easy walking distance from central Cambridge.
> All of it,; not just the watermeadows. In addition, it has
> historically been enjoyed as a beauty spot, albeit spoiled a bit by
> the nearness of the M11 and its traffic noise. It is an
> internationally recognized beauty spot, even if a lot of people only
> know of it from the Umagumma album! Internationally recognized beauty
> spots aren't all up to the standard of the Cheddar Gorge or the Isle
> of Skye.
>
> But positive eyesore, is it? In what way? Have you ever driven through
> Bedfordshire?
Glunk. And you were doing so well. There are some lovely bits of
Bedfordshire. And it even has some gentle rises.
Robert
Jennifer Liddle
> Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
Because that's where you live?
--
Jennifer Liddle J-Squared Ltd http://www.jsquared.co.uk
It's all the fault of the City Council. Everything. Everywhere.
Richard Meredith
(Robert Macmillan) wrote:
Ever driven through suburban America? An endless strip of eighth rate
development, with what green spaces that are left dominated by crap.
If you want that, go live there. On the other hand, if you don't, stop
building on and destroying the ambience of the nice green areas that are
left.
Richard Meredith
alg...@myrealbox.com (Al Grant) wrote:
> rift...@yahoo.com (Gropius Riftwynde) wrote in message
> news:<166639bb.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > You can't take your family for a short and mostly attractive Sunday
> > afternoon walk from central Cambridge to Fulbourn or Teversham. (I
> > REALLY can't believe I have to spell this out).
>
> Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
It's one of the nicer things about Cambridge that you can do just that.
Paul Rudin
JL> Al Grant wrote:
>> Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
JL> Because that's where you live?
Yes, reminds me of an occasion when I asked someone for
directions... "Ah, if you want to go there I wouldn't start from here"
came the useful response :-)
--
I would like to urinate in an OVULAR, porcelain pool --
Robert Macmillan
"Richard Meredith" <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2003040...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk...
Do you really believe that there is no middle ground between suburban
America and a snapshot of Britain as it is today? I'd be surprised as
normally you show a lot more intelligence than that. But if you do I
really can't see any point in you and me discussing it further. If you
disagree, try addressing the sentiment of my point above.
Robert
Meldrew of Meldreth
Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> writes
>> Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
>
>It's one of the nicer things about Cambridge that you can do just that.
Nice for who, though? As a former resident of Eltisley Avenue, the
constant procession of people past my front door was one of the less
endearing aspects of the location.
Patrick Gosling
Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>Ever driven through suburban America? An endless strip of eighth rate
>development, with what green spaces that are left dominated by crap.
>
>If you want that, go live there. On the other hand, if you don't, stop
>building on and destroying the ambience of the nice green areas that are
>left.
Whereas what we've got is endless eighth rate farmland. What's "nice and
green" about having fields so large you can't see a single hedgerow?
I'd be happy to see a non-trivial amount of farmland go 1/3 -> housing
and 2/3 -> commons.
-patrick.
Gropius Riftwynde
> Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
It is quite a sensible thing to do if you are in central Cambridge to
start with. That includes Newnham and Chesterton. Even the Newmarket
Road or Mill Road areas. You can always bike part of the way. God
forbid that I should suggest driving. I suppose you could punt from
the Arbury, but the land-based part of the terrain is a bit hard
going.
> It's a very expensive area, especially Chaucer Road, Latham Road,
> Trumpington Road etc. That's just a fact. Sure, there may be
> impoverished students renting in Newnham but they can go play in
> their college gardens, can't they?
Presumably the council or rental tenants in Grantchester, Newnham and
Trumpington don't count? Not to mention the very numerous other
householders of modest means in all those areas. However, it is not
their meadows, anyway. It is anyone's.
>[snip]...As I said elsewhere, I would
> rather there was no green-belt development at all. It is precisely
> the residents' interests, rather than those of those who merely
> recognize "international beauty spots" from far off, that I think
> should take priority.
Quite so. If we concrete over the whole area between Cambridge and
London, and build affordable housing on it, it would probably relieve
the housing price pressure along the whole corridor. Then, if people
wanted something green, they could visit a garden centre. Or have a
picnic on Midsummer Common. Actually, Milton Keynes isn't far away,
and it is full of green bits. You can walk for miles across it,
without ever having to see a putatively well heeled person.
GR
Robert Macmillan
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b6elbs$j5i$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <memo.2003040...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk>,
> Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >Ever driven through suburban America? An endless strip of eighth rate
> >development, with what green spaces that are left dominated by crap.
> >
> >If you want that, go live there. On the other hand, if you don't, stop
> >building on and destroying the ambience of the nice green areas that
are
> >left.
>
> Whereas what we've got is endless eighth rate farmland. What's "nice
and
> green" about having fields so large you can't see a single hedgerow?
Or a single blade or leaf of green. Or, in fact, anything as you're not
allowed onto it at all.
> I'd be happy to see a non-trivial amount of farmland go 1/3 -> housing
> and 2/3 -> commons.
Patrick for Presi^H^H^H^H^H Prime Minister.
Robert
Mark Carroll
>> Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
>
>It's one of the nicer things about Cambridge that you can do just that.
Absolutely. Though I am all for a lot more building of houses, I
wouldn't want it to be in the form of just enlarging the boundaries of
existing built-up areas by putting more houses in the difference
without, at the least, significant public transport improvements.
-- Mark
Richard Meredith
Meldreth) wrote:
> In message <memo.2003040...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk>, Richard
> Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> writes
> >> Why would you want to start a country walk from central Cambridge?
> >
> >It's one of the nicer things about Cambridge that you can do just that.
>
> Nice for who, though? As a former resident of Eltisley Avenue, the
> constant procession of people past my front door was one of the less
> endearing aspects of the location.
Ahh, Roland, who as ever would rather like the world ordered entirely for
his own personal convenience.
Richard Meredith
Gosling) wrote:
> In article <memo.2003040...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk>,
> Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >Ever driven through suburban America? An endless strip of eighth rate
> >development, with what green spaces that are left dominated by crap.
> >
> >If you want that, go live there. On the other hand, if you don't, stop
> >building on and destroying the ambience of the nice green areas that are
> >left.
>
> Whereas what we've got is endless eighth rate farmland. What's "nice and
> green" about having fields so large you can't see a single hedgerow?
Grantchester Meadows is not endless eighth rate farmland. It's a relatively
small amount of farmland, the undeveloped nature of which contributes
greatly to the ambience of the river area.
> I'd be happy to see a non-trivial amount of farmland go 1/3 -> housing
> and 2/3 -> commons.
What's with this "commons" business? Common land is land over which a group
of people - commoners - have statutory rights of use. Typically it's used by
farmers, who happen to have commoners rights, for grazing animals. In other
words, farmland. AIUI you have no automatic right to use commonland for any
purpose if you don't happen to have commoners rights over that particular
piece of land.
Patrick Gosling
I need to find a better word to describe what I mean, I think. I suspect
that the nearest I'll come to it is a US national park, although I also
suspect that these would not easily transplant to the UK situation (if
nothing else because of the benefits of scale that the US have with this
kind of thing).
At least part of this is driven by a feeling that it's a little rich
for European countries to berate South American countries for destroying
the rain forests, when it's just the case that we did our equivalent
acts of destruction around a thousand years ago.
-patrick.
Richard Meredith
Gosling) wrote:
> I need to find a better word to describe what I mean, I think. I suspect
> that the nearest I'll come to it is a US national park, although I also
> suspect that these would not easily transplant to the UK situation (if
> nothing else because of the benefits of scale that the US have with this
> kind of thing).
"Traditionally managed" is what you mean, I think.
> At least part of this is driven by a feeling that it's a little rich
> for European countries to berate South American countries for destroying
> the rain forests, when it's just the case that we did our equivalent
> acts of destruction around a thousand years ago.
A lot longer than that, actually - the change from "natural" countryside to
more or less what we had by the start of the 20the century started around
6000 BC and AIUI was more or less complete, apart from things like the
drainage of the Fens, by the time of the Romans. At the time it was built
the open downland around Stonehenge was pretty much as it is now, minus a
few roads and visitor centres, and that landscape is itself manmade: it was
originally forest, and was cleared by neolithic farmers.
Almost none of the English landscape would survive without active management
of some sort or another.
National parks here are usually just preserving a manmade landscape:
especially true of the Norfolk Broads, which are as "natural" as the City of
London. Quite different for the US, where they are really preserving the
natural environment.
Patrick Gosling
>> At least part of this is driven by a feeling that it's a little rich
>> for European countries to berate South American countries for destroying
>> the rain forests, when it's just the case that we did our equivalent
>> acts of destruction around a thousand years ago.
>
>A lot longer than that, actually - the change from "natural" countryside to
>more or less what we had by the start of the 20the century started around
>6000 BC and AIUI was more or less complete, apart from things like the
>drainage of the Fens, by the time of the Romans. At the time it was built
>the open downland around Stonehenge was pretty much as it is now, minus a
>few roads and visitor centres, and that landscape is itself manmade: it was
>originally forest, and was cleared by neolithic farmers.
Whereas the various "camps" (eg Castle, Shudy, and Arbury) are asserted
to have originally been clearings in otherwise unmessed-with forest.
As I understand it, this was still the case at the time of the Domesday
books, and in quite a number of areas of the country, not just
Cambridgeshire.
>Almost none of the English landscape would survive without active management
>of some sort or another.
In what sense? If the management were kept at the lightest touch (ie
do little more than stop people trashing the place), what do you think
would develop? It wouldn't be a void, certainly.
>National parks here are usually just preserving a manmade landscape:
>especially true of the Norfolk Broads, which are as "natural" as the City of
>London. Quite different for the US, where they are really preserving the
>natural environment.
However, I do agree with the underlying thrust of what you're saying, so
I suppose that what I am probably arguing for is space managed in the
sense of preventing its exploitation, but not in the sense of (say) the
Forestry Commission planting neat rows of conifers.
An interesting url that sprang up as I was pursuing the camps reference
is:
<http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/alan.j.hardy/castlecamps/woodindex.htm>
which isn't necessarily precisely what I had in mind, but isn't a half
bad stab in the right direction ...
-patrick.
Chris Brown
Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>If the management were kept at the lightest touch (ie
>do little more than stop people trashing the place), what do you think
>would develop? It wouldn't be a void, certainly.
Brambles and stinging nettles, I expect. Lots and lots of the buggers.
We may lack exotic wildlife in this country compared to some places, but we
more than make up for it with our vicious undergrowth. :-)
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
>
> In article <b6f8oq$5qv$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >If the management were kept at the lightest touch (ie
> >do little more than stop people trashing the place), what do you think
> >would develop? It wouldn't be a void, certainly.
>
> Brambles and stinging nettles, I expect. Lots and lots of the buggers.
>
> We may lack exotic wildlife in this country compared to some places, but we
> more than make up for it with our vicious undergrowth. :-)
I thought I heard that the climax population would be
deciduous woodlands.
Richard Meredith
Gosling) wrote:
>
> >Almost none of the English landscape would survive without active
> management >of some sort or another.
>
> In what sense? If the management were kept at the lightest touch (ie
> do little more than stop people trashing the place), what do you think
> would develop? It wouldn't be a void, certainly.
I meant the 'traditional' English landscape. If left untouched, most would
revert to forest, and many species that thrive in a managed landscape would
become endangered: but as many of the species that lived here in Mesolithic
times have become extinct (aurochs, wolves etc) there wouldn't be the
variety that there is even now.
This isn't what people usually mean when they talk about preserving the
countryside.
The English countryside only exists as it does now thanks to farming: going
back to more traditional farming methods, as the organic movement is doing
to a considerable extent, would be a more practical and beneficial way of
preserving what's left than trying to recreate some pre-agricultural nirvana
that has gone forever, if it ever existed.
Mark Ayliffe
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> illuminated us with:
> In article <b6f8oq$5qv$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> Patrick Gosling <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>If the management were kept at the lightest touch (ie
>>do little more than stop people trashing the place), what do you think
>>would develop? It wouldn't be a void, certainly.
>
> Brambles and stinging nettles, I expect. Lots and lots of the buggers.
>
> We may lack exotic wildlife in this country compared to some places, but we
> more than make up for it with our vicious undergrowth. :-)
Brambles maybe, but stinging nettles will only thrive there there is plenty
of nitrogen in the soil, take away the fertilisers associated with farming
and they will decline (though not disappear of course). I reckon Rupert may
be right, deciduous forest would result, I've got a few boerders in my
garden as witness to that :-( Now where did I put that pack of Root Out?
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes.
to reply by email. | There's too much fraternizing with the enemy.
www.ayliffe.org | - Henry Kissinger
Meldrew of Meldreth
>his own personal convenience.
I don't believe I'm alone in this. Almost every posting to cam.misc (and
cam.transport) regarding traffic and parking problems, conflicts between
bikes, buses, taxis and pedestrians, bikes without lights or which
ignore lights, etc etc, reflects a desire by the complainant to have the
priorities set (and policed) in such a way that it suits his personal
convenience. (Sometimes dressed up as personal safety, but volunteering
a little inconvenience will normally be even safer.)
Patrick Gosling
>back to more traditional farming methods, as the organic movement is doing
>to a considerable extent, would be a more practical and beneficial way of
>preserving what's left than trying to recreate some pre-agricultural nirvana
>that has gone forever, if it ever existed.
I'll go with that 8-) . Although I think that at least _some_
minimally managed land would be of benefit as well.
-patrick.
Steve Hunt
> constant procession of people past my front door was one of the less
> endearing aspects of the location.
Which you presumably realised before moving there.
-- Steve
Dave
>
>Absolutely. Though I am all for a lot more building of houses, I
>wouldn't want it to be in the form of just enlarging the boundaries of
>existing built-up areas by putting more houses in the difference
>without, at the least, significant public transport improvements.
>
increasing the density of the housing upon them. By european standards
we have very low density, about one third of theirs IIRC. One has only
to look at the strip development along the main suburban routes, single
or 2 story poor quality shops covering most of it, to see that better
use could be made of the ground space by utilising more of the vertical.
By this I don't mean skyscrapers, but four or five stories, often with
the higher ones set back so they appear less intrusive. Some of the
modern developments in the suburbs of Munich are really attractive.
The worst case is to follow and copy the new developments in Stevenage,
acres of farmland covered in terraces of small single-parent single
person dwellings, or those tiny 'detached' houses with about 40% of the
area covered in tarmac. This simply leaves people a long way from
everything, creating wastelands of low dwellings where a resident family
needs a vehicle to reach anything else.
Once the planners determine higher density is acceptable (with a few
ground rules) the economics would encourage developers to pay a good
price to get the land with existing low dwellings on, and increase the
density.
--
David
Meldrew of Meldreth
<st...@pSoPgAgMle.org> writes
No. Because I'd only visited the house during the week. The tourists are
invasive at the weekend. This is the opposite of the normal problem,
which is visiting a potential new house at the weekend and not properly
researching the weekday school-run/rush-hour.
Richard Meredith
Meldreth) wrote:
> No. Because I'd only visited the house during the week. The tourists are
> invasive at the weekend. This is the opposite of the normal problem,
> which is visiting a potential new house at the weekend and not properly
> researching the weekday school-run/rush-hour.
It's still your responsibility to find out about what an area is like before
moving there, rather than whinging about a "problem" you could easily have
found out about before you moved there.
Richard Meredith
(Dave) wrote:
> Once the planners determine higher density is acceptable (with a few
> ground rules) the economics would encourage developers to pay a good
> price to get the land with existing low dwellings on, and increase the
> density.
How do you propose to get this to actually happen? Spend months or years
persuading the inhabitants of a low density area to move out, buying
properties piecemeal until you've got enough to start work? Or use
compulsory purchase to get hold of land that simply hasn't got the
prescribed housing density already on it?
It's one thing using this sort of technique on derelict, slum or industrial
land, quite a different one for land which has been developed at low density
and where the housing is serviceable.
Meldrew of Meldreth
Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> writes
>It's still your responsibility to find out about what an area is like before
>moving there, rather than whinging about a "problem" you could easily have
>found out about before you moved there.
There is much truth in that. Although it's rather onerous to have to
stake out a place, a hundred miles from home, on weekends and weekdays,
in several seasons of the year, to get this vital info.
Meanwhile, would you extend this caveat emptor regime to other
environmental matters that society often seeks to regulate? Like noisy
neighbours, keeping pigs in the back garden, and so on?
Dave
>
>How do you propose to get this to actually happen? Spend months or years
>persuading the inhabitants of a low density area to move out, buying
>properties piecemeal until you've got enough to start work? Or use
>compulsory purchase to get hold of land that simply hasn't got the
>prescribed housing density already on it?
>
>It's one thing using this sort of technique on derelict, slum or industrial
>land, quite a different one for land which has been developed at low density
>and where the housing is serviceable.
>
out of those tiny 60's terraces if someone made them a financial offer
they couldn't refuse - the layout is awful and the quality not much
better. And from what I know of developers, they are expert at putting
packages together to make a big enough area suitable for development.
Have a look at Biggleswade and Shortmead St leading to the A1, there are
now lots of areas being extensively developed which were lines of shops
and garages, which were accumulated into packages. Have a look in
Baldock where the garage and car showrooms used to be, or Royston where
the garage used to be by the supermarket for multiple storey development
with higher density.
The key issue is setting the economic conditions to make this worthwhile
for them to do. At the moment I suspect there are better and more
profitable solutions, like developing greenfield sites. Only fairly
recent pressure to restrict this has forced them to start on brown-field
sites, which were always there, just not as easy or as profitable, so
there was no incentive to do it.
Its the same with factories. If you develop a purpose made industrial
are and use grants and incentives to relocate old firms there, then you
can develop the old areas. I've seen this done to good effect in
Letchworth and in Stevenage surprisingly.
--
David
Richard Meredith
(Dave) wrote:
> Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> writes
> >
> >How do you propose to get this to actually happen? Spend months or years
> >persuading the inhabitants of a low density area to move out, buying
> >properties piecemeal until you've got enough to start work? Or use
> >compulsory purchase to get hold of land that simply hasn't got the
> >prescribed housing density already on it?
> >
> >It's one thing using this sort of technique on derelict, slum or
> industrial >land, quite a different one for land which has been developed
> at low density >and where the housing is serviceable.
> >
> From what I've seen of the occupants, most would be very willing to move
> out of those tiny 60's terraces
"Tiny 60s terraces" actually sounds like an example of relatively high
density development.
The trouble is that most of the examples of lower density development are in
places people actually want to live, which makes it rather expensive and
harder to redevelop in a way that planners might like.
> if someone made them a financial offer
> they couldn't refuse - the layout is awful and the quality not much
> better. And from what I know of developers, they are expert at putting
> packages together to make a big enough area suitable for development.
Yes, but it takes very few holdouts to make life a lot harder. The technique
there seems to be to leave the holdouts in place and make their life
miserable with all the resulting chaos and mess of redevelopment around
them, which is hardly an attitude you want to encourage.
> Have a look at Biggleswade and Shortmead St leading to the A1, there are
> now lots of areas being extensively developed which were lines of shops
> and garages, which were accumulated into packages. Have a look in
> Baldock where the garage and car showrooms used to be, or Royston where
> the garage used to be by the supermarket for multiple storey development
> with higher density.
Yes, but that's primarily former industrial or commercial land, which I
accept is a quite different matter to low-density residential.
People get sentimentally attached to the house and neighbourhood in which
they live, often for reasons that seem to make no sense to an observer from
outside, which doesn't tend happen in the same way with commercial and
industrial sites. In addition, commercial sites tend to be larger and/or
on short leases: if you get the freeholder onside, you can get a viable
package together quite quickly, whic if you're trying to deal with 50
individual domestic freeholders you can't.
Gropius Riftwynde
> places people actually want to live, which makes it rather expensive and
> harder to redevelop in a way that planners might like.
True. But I thought one of the ideas of housing is to build it in
places *people* might like, not where planners might like. Who gives a
toss what the planners want? They don't have to live there. On the
whole, people prefer to live in low density housing close to amenities
and to attractive leisure areas. Given the choice, they don't want to
live *on* the attractive areas, thus effectively obliterating them,
but near them, leaving the attractive areas free to enjoy.
On the other hand, some people do choose to live in Biggleswade. If
they are that unfussy you might as well use up the brownfield sites,
and thus keep complaints to a minimum.
Interestingly though, you once lived in Eltisely Avenue, which I
suppose is an example of Edwardian high density housing, but which is
attractive by several definitions. You did that by choice of course,
which is a priviledge in itself. Unfortunately you paid the price of
living in an attractive area, which is that the hoi palloi troop past
your door in an incomprehensible and irritating frenzy to get to
somewhere pretty on their weekends off. Cover the pretty places up and
they will stay at home and watch football instead. Everybody happy.
GR
Tim Ward
news:166639bb.03040...@posting.google.com...
>
> On the
> whole, people prefer to live in low density housing close to amenities
> and to attractive leisure areas.
Quite.
Just like people like to have excellent schools and hospitals whilst at the
same time paying no tax.
Trouble is that people can "prefer" what the hell they like, and then slag
off the politicians for failing to deliver clouds full of cuckoos; and they
do, they do - that's the way the world is.
[The nearest approach to your "utopia" I've seen would probably be the
northern suburbs of Perth. Low density housing, sure: swimming pool in every
garden; most houses are bungalows there's so much land each. But "close to
amenities"?? Only if you subsidise the pubs and corner shops out of taxes,
because there simply isn't the density of population that is needed to
support a pub or corner shop in walking distance from everyone's house.]
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Richard Meredith
rift...@yahoo.com (Gropius Riftwynde) wrote:
> Interestingly though, you once lived in Eltisely Avenue, which I
> suppose is an example of Edwardian high density housing, but which is
> attractive by several definitions. You did that by choice of course,
> which is a priviledge in itself. Unfortunately you paid the price of
> living in an attractive area, which is that the hoi palloi troop past
> your door in an incomprehensible and irritating frenzy to get to
> somewhere pretty on their weekends off. Cover the pretty places up and
> they will stay at home and watch football instead. Everybody happy.
Err, I hope I'm not confused that easily with Roland. I have never in my
life lived in Eltisley Avenue. The only places I have lived in Cambridge and
its environs are Queens' College, The Footpath in Coton and now here in
Hardwick.
Gropius Riftwynde
> Err, I hope I'm not confused that easily with Roland. I have never in my
> life lived in Eltisley Avenue. The only places I have lived in Cambridge and
> its environs are Queens' College, The Footpath in Coton and now here in
> Hardwick.
Rats! My apologies - the Google news format is confusing me again.
GE
Mark Carroll
Gropius Riftwynde <rift...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Rats! My apologies - the Google news format is confusing me again.
This would make a good sig for you. (-:
-- Mark