Complaining about Village life?

I don't know - a heads up on fb for when the fields are about to be sprayed, would be nice. Would save people from hanging their washing out on those days.

There is an app that bee keepers use where farmers will input data when they are going to be spraying. It is so beeks can shut their hives for the required time so bees don't get poisoned. Maybe use that for your washing?

An anonymous poster to our village FB complained that the sound of a lawnmower, I think probably ours, was ruining her enjoyment of her G and T whilst lying on her sunlounger. This was at about 6pm on a Saturday. DH had been at work all day and the forecast was rain on Sunday.

Oh that’s great it still exists.

https://blackmorevale.net/

I remember back in the late 80s our local free paper (The Blackmore Vale Magazine.

I loved the Blackmore Vale mag when I lived near Shaftesbury. Does it still exist ?

depends on how grand the bunker is

There’s plenty of land in cities that can be built on - but the thing is, it’s mostly got cars parked on it right now.

...or option 3: instead of stuffing living, breathing, light-and-air-enjoying human people permanently underground, might it be an option in some cases, where a public transport option might not be the golden solution, to dig these same underground bunkers and move the car parking down, so that houses can be built above ground?!

in a sense there are many that already do although maybe not 24/7, eg various military underground bunkeers etc
but that said yes it would be quite intriguing

But mostly by necessity rather than free choice. You might as well say that trenches were clearly where soldiers (by choice and conscripts alike) dearly wanted to spend their time during WW1!

A lot of people enjoy the adventure of camping for a week or two in summer, but would be absolutely horrified to be told that they must now live year-round camping in a tent with no alternative option.

Yes, a lot of people do get to move house in their lives (not always 'upwards', mind), but a great many others don't. Imagine being told (or realising) that, for the rest of your life, you would never get to live in a home again that had a single window that would give light or be able to be opened for fresh air. Would you really, genuinely choose that for yourself and your family?

There’s plenty of land in cities that can be built on - but the thing is, it’s mostly got cars parked on it right now.

So (and I’m being completely serious, not facetious or deliberately trying to be an arsehole here), yes, we could build nearly all these homes on brownfield sites. However, this will mean accepting that rural and suburban types will find it harder and harder to drive their cars into town and will have to start switching to public transport and parkNrides - partly because most of the parking spaces will get built on, partly because when you have a lot of people living in urban centers, they increasingly put pressure on to keep the cars out of cities (because they want to be able to walk and cycle easily and pleasantly in cities, so they push for more congestion charges, pedestrialization schemes and getting roads narrowed for bus lanes and cycle lanes).

I’m kind of repeating what I said on the “15 minute cities” thread, but: the UK’s cities have basically got a choice. Option 1: They can stick with the car-centered development model (but this means accepting that a lot of countryside and green belt will have to be built on, and a lot of pretty old-fashioned townscapes will have to altered to make way for bigger car parks and ring roads and stuff). Or, Option 2: They can insist on maintaining their pretty cities and pretty surrounding countryside (but this means accepting that people are going to have to switch to public transport for an increasing number of journeys and that heavy restrictions will be put on driving and parking).

The UK, other than London, has refused to make these hard but important choices, which is why our cities outside London remain poor by Western European standards.

in a sense there are many that already do although maybe not 24/7, eg various military underground bunkeers etc
but that said yes it would be quite intriguing

Many of these people buy up smaller starter housing on new estates- just to earn money from letting it. The government encourages them because it removes responsibility for social housing from the State. They have no appetite to address this issue.

There are plenty of houses and flats- far too many are owned by landlords and far to many of those by landlords and housing associations who allow them to fall into disrepair.
Additionally, cities are full of buildings which are falling into disuse daily and which could be converted back into living accommodation- which is what many were originally. Newcastle, for example, is full of beautiful Georgian houses which were turned into retail premises on the ground floor and upper floors used for smaller businesses like accountants etc and many are now disused. They are beautiful properties. Many small towns have the same issues.

We don't need to rip up the countryside for housing estates.
Take properties back from landlords - no one should own more than 3 properties max. Compulsory purchase at cheapest rate possible depending on state of property- like HS2 did.
Sell to those who want to buy at very cheap rate- they can pay builders to do up or do it themselves.
Government buy up town centre properties and sell them to builders to renovate and sell at reasonable prices.
It could be done. There are people who own 20+ and up to many hundreds of BTL properties.

You have read far too much into this. It’s just hilarious to see a comment wishing an Aldi would get built as they think the village needs more amenities and then a bunch of older residents getting angry and saying they shouldn’t have moved here then! The anger on local Facebook groups over most issues is always a laugh

its a pitty we couldent build underground cities etc, then its the best of both

Really? Would you want to be the first person to have to live underground - and consider it in any way 'the best'?

Jesus… can you lot take your housing bitching to one of the 100’s of other threads on the same topic?

There are many reasons why many people don't have adequate housing. They are not primarily due to other people objecting to more building than their villages have the infrastructure to handle. Or them believing that preservation of the countryside is important.

Just like a village fb page!

Well this thread went down hill fast

I can read and I see that you're spouting the same unworkable nonsense that you people always have always spouted to keep people out of housing to save your views. Yes, you are one of the privileged. You lot never admit to it.

If you actually did think the countryside mattered, you and others of your ilk wouldn't have shut down building for so many decades. You would have encouraged it because it would have been done slowly enough that there could have been decent planning. We might have been able to figure out how to use existing buildings and/or sites. We now have no choice but to build over countryside because it's the fastest and cheapest option. You've brought what's coming on yourselves.

You don't understand. Time is up. You don't get to bleat about the countryside while millions of people either have nowhere to live or are in unstable, mouldy, freezing conditions.

Oh we did! We still have occasional issues with hunt followers parking on our land and blocking our access but the hunt master's a neighbour and owns most of the land around here (except ours). He delivers a bottle of whiskey on hunt days to apologise in advance.

I was merely talking about the village WhatsApp group who will pile on to anyone who is the least bit critical of their traditional ways.

@Antst I swear to god you can't fucking read! I didn't say you should be living in a converted office block, only that the land currently occupied by disused offices and old out of town retail parks could be cleared and built on instead, since these sites have amenities already.
Sure, it's more expensive to clear land that's been built on, then to build in a field, but it's better.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about 'you lot'. I don't have a big house or own property I rent out. But I do think that protecting the countryside is important - we can't keep building on flood plains or fields because preservation of our environment is important too.

Older people aren't obliged to give up their homes or to watch their communities be ruined, just because you couldn't buy a house!

...preference wise, it’s a pity we can’t build underground cities. The best of both

Is this a joke? It’s no one’s preference to live underground.

A lot of fuss on our FB site about people “not English” in a van picking up items from skips.
I don’t get why this is a problem. If stuff is in a skip it was not wanted so why is it a problem if someone takes it? I’d be pleased if it were my skip, as there would be more room for my own rubbish.

Well, if we had dealt with the housing crisis decades ago by (1) starting to build new housing and planning it properly and (2) updating existing housing (British homes are some of the worst in Europe as far as insulation and mould), then we wouldn't have to build willy-nilly over the countryside now.

The very same privileged older people who moan about the countryside disappearing are the NIMBYs and landlords and investors who have exploited the housing crisis to stop building. If all they have to deal with is blighted views, then that is hardly a consequence for the pain they've inflicted on everyone else by depriving so many of housing.

im not againts new builds as i can understand the need for them, its just preference wise id prefer countryside but that said its a pitty we couldent build underground cities etc, then its the best of both