Disabled serviceman and special dispensation for house building in the green belt!

[HMC]

I was half watching breakfast news today and there was an item about a double amputee Bristish serviceman (alas, I can't recall in which conflict he sustained his injuries, possibly Afghanistan?). There is a great deal of fuss because a local authority have declined permission for him to build a bespoke bungalow suitable for his needs in an area of greenbelt countryside. Apparently even the PM and David Cameron are on their case.

Far from being a no brainer, I find myself supporting the Local authority's position. Of course society owes a debt to their injured servicemen and women (putting 'politics' aside for a moment) - but I can't see that allowing our dwindling unspoilt countryside to be compromised is in any way justifiable however 'deserving' the plantiff is

I would support a grant to help him build an appropriate house - but not in the greenbelt

What do you think?

As ever the press mix up two unrelated issues.

If this guy has been injured in service then of course we owe it to him to provide support, housing etc. If we don't, it's a disgrace.

If our planning laws are too tight in any way then that also needs to be changed. But these are separate and unrelated matters.

The press specialise in these stories - deserving person (usually war veteran, old lady, hard working volunteer etc) denied something that is denied to everybody else too. Cue outcry.

Can't say I'd like to see planning laws based upon personal need. If it's ok to build then it's ok to build, if it isn't then it isn't.

"so a few middle class NIMBY's can go for walks on a Sunday afternoon"

Lol, I really don't think that the preservation of green space and concern about country side is solely the domain of the chattering classes. I'm sure eco warrior 'Swampy' wouldn't like to see himself bracketted with the petit bourgeois

But he so is included only those who can afford to turn their back on society, I'd bet my granny he went to Eton

Strongly agree with Sorrento

"When you have the majority families squashed into crampt conditions so a few middle class NIMBY's can go for walks on a Sunday afternoon I see red."

It is utterly disgusting that the wants of the privileged few are put before the needs of the many. And I don't think it is really so much about "preserving green belt" or even nice places to go walking as it is about preserving the value of property owned by the relatively wealthy.

While there are two seperate issues here it still highlights the cruelty of these arbitrary restrictions and how they can impact on individuals.

Sorry but that's utter bollocks Upwind. I feel very strongly that our countryside is under threat and there are brown field sites that could be used for development. Don't tell me that my concern is motivated by a desire to maintain property prices - crappola.

HMC, accepting that, as you insist, your concern is not motivated by a desire to maintain property prices - you still show an extraordinarily callous disregard for the needs of individuals like this disabled serviceman and more generally for the families forced to live in cramped conditions or waste a substantial part of their lives commuting from beyond the greenbelt. Shame on you.

Upwind, or WindUp

can you explain why the "countryside is under threat" justifies making accomodation artificially scarce and forcing lengthy commutes?

Who actually benefits from cornfields at the edges of our towns? I can see an argument for more parks but greenbelt is not usually parkland.