Proposal to replace Butts bridge at the MHR

That's what I imagined.... i don't know about building the houses and buying the land being included though

 

That sounds really awful - both for you and for Alresford. It's a very pleasant little town. Development on this scale may well spoil its character.

I note you use the phrase "Government imposed". So much for Mr Cameron's talk of localism and giving local people some real say in how their communities are run!

 

The Government, who are very very aware of the severe lack of housing stock, have imposed housing numbers on areas, but have given those District and Unitary authorities the freedom to chose where those houses go. We have to have more housing in the UK, that is an unfortunate fact, local authorities just need to make sure these happen in the right places

 

We should be pleased that the Mid Hants have managed to turn what was probably, ultimately, a foregone conclusion to their advantage. I don't think there is a single heritage railway in the country that couldn't do with more working capital, and most are not fortunate enough to be able to supply sources such as the Coastal Communities fund, as tapped by the NYMR and NNR. Get it where you can!

 

Thanks for posting that detailed post about the whole situation, bit unfair that the MHR should be getting flack for seeking financial gain from the disruption having one of it's termini cut off for a period would bring, not to mention the loss of revenue from people arriving by mainline train during this period.

 

The railway is lucky that this didn't happen in the early days of the railway, as the bridge would have been removed and the railway would had to pay for a new one to be put into place.

 

With a professional background in these sort of arguments I am only too familiar with the way these disputes go. Firstly, residents want the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to not accept the Governments housing targets. If the LPA did this, it would start to lose appeals as it could not demonstrate where it was making provision for housing and new houses would be built with permissions granted on appeal. Secondly, where the LPA has agreed (as seems to be the case here) that housing should go on a certain site subject to sensible conditions being met such as decent access, aggrieved residents then latch onto someone with a strategic landholding (in this case the railway) that could frustrate the development. They see the railway as having a stranglehold and expect it to strangle the developer. Well, it hasn't and it can't.

If the LPA really want the site developed it can make a compulsory purchase order under Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 although LPAs tend to try to avoid these and prefer to encourage the developer to buy off anyone holding a ransom strip. Finally, railways are not in the same position as ordinary landowners with ransom strips because their land holding was created compulsorily by Act of Parliament for the sole purpose of carrying traffic by rail. A railway cannot, for example prevent a bridge being built over it and cannot impose a charge for such, although it can of course charge for disruption, inconvenience and loss of income. Where a railway-owned structure is involved matters area little more complicated but, at the end of the day, the railway must agree to reasonable terms for the work. This is what I am sure the MHR has done. It seems that they think it is a good deal but residents need to remember that neither the railway nor the LPA has a free hand in these matters.

 

If this really happened, no houses would be built anywhere.

 

If you get some Network Rail people involved on this bridge replacement, it should be done within a week from when the track is taken up to the first train running again.

 

People always complain about the cost of houses (and how they are now out of the reach of most first time buyer) yet as soon as new housing is planned scream "not in my back yard"

 

But to be fair, Hurricane, that is usually the attitude of people who do have a house and often have little concern for prospective house owners.

 

Exactly, the ironic thing is Alton is a great town to build a controlled about of housing, the town may even benefit in the long term if the line to London was ever doubled.

 

There is another solution: encourage as many i........s as possible to go home and stop any more from coming here (I'll probably be censored by the moderators for saying this!) but the native born UK population is more or less stable so if this were to happen, very few houses would need to be built..

 

I think you will find your post is censored.....

One thing that needs to be understood is that the UK needs immigration (all developed countries do) in order to satisfy the services and menial task labour pool... also many immigrants are highly skilled and we simply cannot continue with out them. Only the other day on radio 4 was a programme about how many UK nurses are now sourced from overseas due to the demand on the NHS.

Unfortunately it the immigrants who turn up here expecting a free ride on life/cash hand outs that need to be stopped.

 

There was an absolute classic on the Facebook page for Horsham I saw recently which said something like "Hi, I'm looking to move to the area but I'm concerned at the amount of development which is going on".

Irony is just a word used to describe an iron for some people...

 

Whilst it is convenient for the political Right to blame immigrants for local services being over stretched, this is what happens when more housing is approved, built and occupied and local services are not invested in.

In my home town, in the 1970s, there was major building of new houses but 2 new primary schools were built and the 1974 education reorganisation saw the existing Secondary Modern and Grammar School combined and the later had an on-going programme of extra facilities being built as more pupils stayed into the 6th Form.

The hospital was extended and an inter-relief road built.

Since the Millennium, a number of industrial sites have been demolished and new housing built, with further employers leaving the town in part due to the development potential of their sites. However, this time, no new schools have been built, and the services provided at the hospital are being cut back, not expanded.

The ethnic origin of the occupants of the new housing doesn't matter. There is plenty of demand for housing amongst the "indigenous" population. House prices wouldn't keep increasing as they do without a serious shortage. Section 106 is sometimes used to ensure there are some extra services for take account of increased numbers living in an area but all too often, local and national Government fails to provide extra services despite extra Government Income (Council and other Taxes) proportionate to population growth. Immigration usually has nothing to do with it.

Steven

 

Yes, we may have a shortage of nurses, but we could manage by giving them short-term work permits until we can sort out our broken education system. Also, we do still happen to have rather a lot of unemployed British people who could easily do the menial jobs. Maybe my comment will be censored, but I love this country and its magnificent scenery. I spent 15 years living in a house on the edge of a town that overlooked fields. It wasn't in a national park or an AONB and I felt all the time that I was under siege - that at any time my view was going to be replaced by some horrid housing estate an I would be powerless to stop it. I guess that is why I feel so passionate about the subject. Thankfully, I was eventually able to afford to move to an AONB where you feel you have some protection from development, but I feel sad whenever I pass through an area that was once green fields and is now ugly urban sprawl. I'd rather do without certain things in order to preserve our landscapes, our culture and what tranquility still remains. Indeed, I'm pretty fearful about the whole cohesion of our country. If you want a low crime society with a sense of community and a non-intrusive state, what we have been doing in the last 15 or so years is not the way to achieve it.

 

Funny how the crime rate has been falling in the past 15 years and more, measured not on reported crime but on peoples actual experience of crime.



http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-june-2014/index.html

But we are wandering far off topic.

 

Cannot merely click "like" on this excellent posting and let it just pass by.

Sometimes I think if one scratches a Briton a Nimby or "aged flatulence" is likely to appear but I hope this is a bit unfair. Now living next to a linear scrapyard or adjoining a steam motive power depot in the era when they burned Daw Mill coal is a different matter!

PH