|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Developments at Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
jackyboy 145 posts |
Mar 03, 2011, 17:31
|
||
|
VBB wrote: jackyboy wrote: VBB wrote: tjj wrote: VBB wrote: If that space is in Avebury then someone will perhaps be encouraged by recent events to put in to build on it and Wilts planners judging by those same events are likely to be sympathetic no matter what objections are made by conservationists on behalf of the WHS that is supposed to take precedence. What are we going to say to a field of solar panels with the odd monuments stiicking out? Surely the only sensible place to put solar panels is on roofs - I understand a couple of panels generates enough energy to heat the average home with enough left over to sell back to the National Grid. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327375/The-solar-panel-gold-rush-threatens-ruin-countryside.html F Kin hel Quite! "A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Our Feed-in Tariff is designed to encourage people to generate their own energy and contribute to the security of our energy supplies. ‘Thanks to these incentives, farmers have an opportunity to embrace renewable energy" Gulp
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6209 posts |
Mar 03, 2011, 20:24
|
||
|
jackyboy wrote: "A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Our Feed-in Tariff is designed to encourage people to generate their own energy and contribute to the security of our energy supplies. Most of the firms that are getting involved in the scheme (i.e. supplying and fitting the panels) want to concentrate on selling to owners of single residential properties, as these are the easiest to sort out - including the legal aspects, as these generally involve the homeowner leasing the airspace on their roof to the company. Example here: http://www.isis-solar.com/ (Not a plug in any way, just a firm I have come across recently in this context.)
|
|||
|
jackyboy 145 posts |
Mar 03, 2011, 20:44
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: jackyboy wrote: "A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Our Feed-in Tariff is designed to encourage people to generate their own energy and contribute to the security of our energy supplies. Most of the firms that are getting involved in the scheme (i.e. supplying and fitting the panels) want to concentrate on selling to owners of single residential properties, as these are the easiest to sort out - including the legal aspects, as these generally involve the homeowner leasing the airspace on their roof to the company. Example here: http://www.isis-solar.com/ (Not a plug in any way, just a firm I have come across recently in this context.) My post was in relation to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327375/The-solar-panel-gold-rush-threatens-ruin-countryside.html and the end part of the report.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Mar 03, 2011, 21:00
|
||
|
jackyboy wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: jackyboy wrote: "A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Our Feed-in Tariff is designed to encourage people to generate their own energy and contribute to the security of our energy supplies. Most of the firms that are getting involved in the scheme (i.e. supplying and fitting the panels) want to concentrate on selling to owners of single residential properties, as these are the easiest to sort out - including the legal aspects, as these generally involve the homeowner leasing the airspace on their roof to the company. Example here: http://www.isis-solar.com/ (Not a plug in any way, just a firm I have come across recently in this context.) My post was in relation to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327375/The-solar-panel-gold-rush-threatens-ruin-countryside.html and the end part of the report. I've just read the Daily Mail link and see that there is a small scheme about to take off near Malmesbury in Wiltshire - I can't argue with the principle of renewable energy - am sure this debate has taken place before about wind turbines. I'm happy to stand corrected but, as alien as they are to the countryside, if they don't do irreversible and they don't end up on Waden Hill then I don't think I object too much.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6209 posts |
Mar 03, 2011, 21:34
|
||
|
jackyboy wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: jackyboy wrote: "A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Our Feed-in Tariff is designed to encourage people to generate their own energy and contribute to the security of our energy supplies. Most of the firms that are getting involved in the scheme (i.e. supplying and fitting the panels) want to concentrate on selling to owners of single residential properties, as these are the easiest to sort out - including the legal aspects, as these generally involve the homeowner leasing the airspace on their roof to the company. Example here: http://www.isis-solar.com/ (Not a plug in any way, just a firm I have come across recently in this context.) My post was in relation to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327375/The-solar-panel-gold-rush-threatens-ruin-countryside.html and the end part of the report. Yes, and I agree with the "gulp" there. But I believe much of the focus of the scheme is likely to be residential-based.
|
|||
|
jackyboy 145 posts |
Mar 04, 2011, 09:16
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: jackyboy wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: jackyboy wrote: "A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Our Feed-in Tariff is designed to encourage people to generate their own energy and contribute to the security of our energy supplies. Most of the firms that are getting involved in the scheme (i.e. supplying and fitting the panels) want to concentrate on selling to owners of single residential properties, as these are the easiest to sort out - including the legal aspects, as these generally involve the homeowner leasing the airspace on their roof to the company. Example here: http://www.isis-solar.com/ (Not a plug in any way, just a firm I have come across recently in this context.) My post was in relation to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327375/The-solar-panel-gold-rush-threatens-ruin-countryside.html and the end part of the report. Yes, and I agree with the "gulp" there. But I believe much of the focus of the scheme is likely to be residential-based. I'm sure your right, I hope people don't over do it though. I have seen a couple of buildings with the roof covered in those things and it don't look good.
|
|||
|
jackyboy 145 posts |
Mar 04, 2011, 09:36
|
||
|
Looks like they have some reasonable parking facilities in place at Avebury for those people that hold a Blue Badge http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/MotoringAndTransport/Bluebadgescheme/DG_4001061 You can park for free in the NT car park and Village car park and in the designated spaces in the Old Farmyard. http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-avebury/w-avebury-parking.htm I have no idea if this part of the BB scheme applies at Avebury or not. "In England, Blue Badge holders may generally park •on single or double yellow lines for up to three hours, except where there is a ban on loading or unloading" Again, I have no idea if there are enough ramps for people in wheelchairs or on mobility scooters to get around comfortably. Maybe somebody more local could check it out.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Mar 06, 2011, 13:48
Mar 06, 2011, 13:45
|
||
|
“...the Big Society has something to be said for it (when it comes to communal caring for megalithic sites at least), the way in which it works has yet to be determined. We have already proposed that enthusiasts should take on responsibility for regular inspection of every site and we will be suggesting to NT, EH and others a possible way for them to make access to information extend far beyond what they offer on their information boards, by showing people how they could tap into online sources supplied by enthusiastic amateurs." More here under the title In defence of Avebury.
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Mar 06, 2011, 15:45
Mar 06, 2011, 15:41
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: “...the Big Society has something to be said for it (when it comes to communal caring for megalithic sites at least), the way in which it works has yet to be determined. We have already proposed that enthusiasts should take on responsibility for regular inspection of every site and we will be suggesting to NT, EH and others a possible way for them to make access to information extend far beyond what they offer on their information boards, by showing people how they could tap into online sources supplied by enthusiastic amateurs." More here under the title In defence of Avebury. Very good article LS; no one who claims to care about Avebury could do anything but support what you say. The Bonds Garage development was unfortunate, it cannot be denied, but the general public were kept out of the picture until after planning permission had been granted - so information needs to be more widely available to everyone (not just the people who may benefit) before anything gets to the planning permission stage. Do you (Heritage Action) have a strategy to ensure this happens? NB: This is a genuine question regarding something I consider to be real issue ie dissemination of information on a larger scale not just within archaeological circles ('scuse pun).
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 06, 2011, 15:55
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Littlestone wrote: “...the Big Society has something to be said for it (when it comes to communal caring for megalithic sites at least), the way in which it works has yet to be determined. We have already proposed that enthusiasts should take on responsibility for regular inspection of every site and we will be suggesting to NT, EH and others a possible way for them to make access to information extend far beyond what they offer on their information boards, by showing people how they could tap into online sources supplied by enthusiastic amateurs." More here under the title In defence of Avebury. Very good article LS; no one who claims to care about Avebury could do anything but support what you say. The Bonds Garage development was unfortunate, it cannot be denied, but the general public were kept out of the picture until after planning permission had been granted - so information needs to be more widely available to everyone (not just the people who may benefit) before anything gets to the planning permission stage. Do you (Heritage Action) have a strategy to ensure this happens? NB: This is a genuine question regarding something I consider to be real issue ie dissemination of information on a larger scale not just within archaeological circles ('scuse pun). Do planning aplications differ from county to county because in Cornwall, applications for planning consent have to be posted up on the perimeter of the property for 28 days I think it is to give the public a chance to have their say? I know when we bought our barn we had to do this and the closest neighbours to either side were notified personally to see if they had any objections. Did this not happen at Avebury?
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
