In fact while extreme this sort of think goes on all the time round here. Councils get brownie points (and money) from the government if their local peopl are happy with the service. In the case of planning the ones to make happy are the applicants not those who object (who don't get a 'improve the service' questionaire after the event. So the more they pass the happier people get. Of course they do refuse some but it is remarkable that the more people who protest about an application the better the chance of it being approved. The current state is exasperated by the fact that this council disappears in April when our three councils - rural, borough and county become two - rural and Unitary. Both borough and county voted for this change without reference to the peoples opinion. Only now are some of the coucillers realising that they will loose power though most of the borough ones are either on the local town council or have jumped ship to the County and will stand for Unitary. (We just had the first Unitary candidate call with a fist full of promises as I typed this.) Meanwhile some of the Borough councillors - who are mostly urban creatures - are enjoying a bit of power over the country Borough ones by doing things they might be against. One urban lady is particularly disliked round here due to her ability to boss others into submission. She is a leading player in the 'factory farm and blow the locals affair' and will almost certainly get her way in the end. One understands she was as unhappy as the senior planning officer (speaking for the more junior one who did the actual work) that the application could be held up at the recent meeting by the vote for a environmental assessment. Incidentally one thing leveled against the objectors is that they are really closet townies. The strange thing is that many against the proposal are born and bred countymen. However they are not farmers who form a seperate group, tight knit with their own Smithfield, unions and associations. Having said that all the above is predicable - what amazed us was that SSSIs come and go at Natural Englands whim. --- On Thu, 3/5/09, Ian Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Ian Cardinal <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [canals-list] When is an SSSI not an SSSI & How to start a factory farm To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 11:42 AM I am quite stunned at this posting. Not that I don't believe you Davis, but it seems almost incredible. What a farce planning is! Ian Cardinal aka Norman the Narrowboat > -----Original Message----- > From: canals-list@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:canals-list@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of > David Cragg > Sent: 05 March 2009 09:50 > To: canals-list@ yahoogroups. com > Subject: Re: [canals-list] When is an SSSI not an SSSI & How to start a factory farm > > Maesbury Marsh is a village near the end of the open section of the Montgomery Canal. It is > in the country and the canal section is an SSSI - or so we thought... > > A few years ago a lorry driving chap brought 25 acres of land right next to the village and > near the Canal Central Post Office. The land had no house but a barn and some sheds - the > farm house being sold off years ago. > > Shortly after buying the land the owner first (illegally) lived in a caravan on the land and > then, in an area where permissions are rarely given, was given permission to turn the barn > into a house. After this another planning application went in for a new barn and, in spite of > local opposition, the council officers and certain influential councillors bent over backwards > to push the application through. > > After the barn went up it quickly became clear that it was not for the few cattle in the fields > but for an intensive calf rearing operation. This involves food being lorried in and muck > being stored on site (400metres upwind of the village) then lorried away along the road. The > road is single track and extremely narrow with twists. It is mainly used by walkers and > cyclists (though according to the county council it is used only by lorries and few of them). > > The road crosses the canal near Canal Central PO on a bridge limited to 10 tons - though > loads of muck similar to the one that broke the bridge near Stenson been seen to go over this > bridge - a twin to the Stenson one. However most of the lorries go the other way along the > lane through a ford and over that massive bridge created in the restoration by Peate's mill. > (Be careful here and up the lane walking, visiting folks!) Although an estimate by the > applicant implied 2 lorries a week plus others (?) a two day few hour count saw 14 cross the > bridge - and that was before the latest application. .. > > This latest application is for another shed for calf rearing. This shed could take 600 though > the application implies only 150 on top of the 200 currently indoors on site. As before > certain councillors (now backed by farmers mostly not local) tried to bulldoze the > application through while the council officers (one of who advised on the application but is > not the one set to approve it) approved it in the face of local opposition. In fact some > councillors (at least one of which received calls to drop it) are now annoyed enough oppose > the application and to have forced a environmental assessment to be carried out. (A thing > the council officers maintain is needed for siting a caravan but not for cattle rearing with > muck per hundred cattle piling up at 4 tons per day. (A read of the www.factoryfarming. org > site will tell you about the environmental implications of this!)) > > In the midst of this lot it was pointed out that the canal corridor along here is an SSSI and > surely that should count for something. Well locals have always thought it was an SSSI and > any WRGies out there may remember that when they restored Aston locks in the 1990s BW > chained them up and used the threat of permanent refusal for future restoration by English > Nature who had made the canal below an SSSI as one of their clubs to beat the restorers into > compliance. > > When the SSSI status was raised the powers that be found that the Maesbury bit was made a > a rare plant etc., SSSI in the 1990s BUT in 2001 - when a BW eco restoration was begun at > massive cost on the Maesbury section English Nature waved a magic wand, all the rare > plants disappeared and the SSSI status was rescinded as far as Redwith. So - when is an > SSSI not an SSSI - when English Nature (now Natural England) say so. And, in this case it > was on/off at convenient times for certain parties... It seems not only our councillors > perform cartwheels when it suits them. > > So now you know - and if you fancy a bit of factory farming now you also know how to go > about it - from field to house to barn to bigger barn - and there is plenty of room for > expansion yet in those 25 acres. > > Incidentally the farm guy keeps his barns and land around flood-lite all night. Maybe he is > worried that those men in hoods will arrive and free his beasts - or maybe he just likes > annoying his neighbours. (Final note for visiting boaters - he has been reported to the police > for driving at people as he seems to think the local lane is his road private so watch out!) > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
