ERIC PICKLES - HANG YOUR HEAD IN SHAME FOR HOOK NORTON

Professional politicians are often accused of acting in their own interests in order to ensure they are still in a job at the next election.

Nobody can accuse Eric Pickles of this. He is single-handedly attempting to ensure that there will be NO CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT after the next election. 

The Cotswold village of Hook Norton, just 10 miles from the Prime Minister's own home, has just fought and lost a battle over green-field development against Taylor Wimpey. 

Actually, the villagers WON the planning arguments but Eric Pickles overturned the decision so now they face a sudden 10% increase in village size. Ten percent may not seem many but it represents 70 new houses with 70 new families in a village where the school is full. 

Over 90% of villagers were against the development but Eric Pickles, Champion of Localism, decided that they must all be thick, stupid and not to be considered. They are like ants to be trodden on as insignificant creatures because HE, the GREAT ERIC PICKLES, knows best. 

Why was he able to punish the villagers in such a way? ... Because the local council did NOT have a 5-year housing plan in place. The villagers had NO CONTROL over the local council's progress on the 5-year plan so WHY SHOULD THEY BE PUNISHED?

Rural landscapes, rural villages, and the rural way of life are part of Britain's heritage. Once destroyed it can never be restored. Unlike National Trust properties which are maintained as historic relics, the rural way of life and rural villages are alive and kicking. Nobody is asking for them to be preserved unchanged in perpetuity but they need to be allowed to grow organically. 

Villages evolve. Residents die and vacate houses for younger families. There is no necessity to automatically build houses which change the village character. To do this destroys the very thing which makes people want to live there.

What people find particularly insulting is when politicians, who are elected to SERVE THE PEOPLE decide, like Eric Pickles and Nick Boles, that THEY KNOW BEST. The next election will show who DOES know best!

Should this rural landscape be changed from a food-producing area into

yet another housing development. When top grade farmland is gone, 

where will our food come from?   Population is 67 million & growing!

BALDWINS GATE faces an even bigger onslaught. A development that would increase the village by a third and the population by 50%. 

I have lived in the village for 38 years. We were one of the youngest couples on our avenue when we moved in but gradually, residents have died or moved into care-homes, vacating their houses for younger people. Now I am one of the "older" residents. Rejuvenating a village can not be used as an excuse for destroying it. 

If Pickles & Co can over-ride the wishes of the people and their elected representatives on planning committees, then THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY!!!

What is the meaning of SUSTAINABLE?

The UK Government is forcing local councils to view planning applications with "a presumption in favour of approval" providing that developments are "sustainable". So what is the meaning of "sustainable"?

In "Through the Looking Glass", Alice asked Humpty Dumpty the meaning of a word and his reply was "It means just what I choose it to mean!" and it seems that to those in Eric Pickles' Department of Community and Local Government "sustainable" comes into the same category.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council faces this problem because it has failed to have in place a local plan which meets the borough's housing targets. Richborough Estates intends to submit an application to build 117 houses on a this greenfield site on Baldwins Gate Farm. Despite all the relevant facts: that this would increase the size of the village by one third, that the school is already full, that there is no prospect of travel to work other than by car, that the sewerage system is already overloaded, that the main road through the village is well known for the number of accidents, and even that the field floods at times, they seem intent on claiming that the development is "sustainable".

Interestingly, the council DID have a plan at one time and, being very "green" in their attitudes, they set out what they see as "sustainable development"...

Sustainable development is at the heart of this Local Plan. It is enshrined in its general aim (see Introduction). Development that improves the quality of life for the residents of the area is to be encouraged so long as it is not to the detriment of the environment in other ways and does not harm the environment for future generations. The highest priority must be given to non-renewable resources: those things which if damaged or destroyed can never be replaced. All development decisions must be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the long term future is not sacrificed to short term expediency. This includes not only what is developed, but where development takes place. The pattern of development affects the way we behave; if we have to travel unnecessarily, we cause pollution and use more non-renewable resources. 

... Development that improves the quality of life for the residents of the area is to be encouraged [this does not improve the life of residents of the area which is why so many object] ... 

so long as it is not to the detriment of the environment in other ways and does not harm the environment for future generations. [It will harm the environment and will adversely affect future generations by destroying a village]... 

The highest priority must be given to non-renewable resources: those things which if damaged or destroyed can never be replaced [green fields are a none-renewable resource: once built on they cannot be returned to nature, something which the council has confirmed elsewhere]... 

All development decisions must be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the long term future is not sacrificed to short term expediency [building on this green field would reduce the need to find brown-field places to build to reach the council's housing target. That, and bowing to government pressure, is sacrificing long-term future to short term expediency]. 

This includes not only what is developed, but where development takes place. The pattern of development affects the way we behave; if we have to travel unnecessarily, we cause pollution and use more non-renewable resources. [The village of Baldwins Gate is 5 miles from Newcastle-under-Lyme, the nearest main place of employment. Public transport would never be able to fulfil the commuting requirements of people living here. Currently there is 1 bus per hour on weekdays and Saturdays so, even if this were increased four-fold which would not be financially viable, for convenience of onward travel, commuters would still travel mainly by car - "causing pollution and using more non-renewable resources"].

View our campaign website