|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Developments at Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
neighbourofthedrude 1555 posts |
Mar 06, 2011, 16:11
|
||
|
I can't be arsed to read all the replies here so I'll just put in my sugestion and bugger off again. There is only one thing I'd like to see at Avebury/Kennet/Silbury. Won't cost much. Won't spoil the vibe man. RUBBISH BINS ! Make them out of wood/stone/plastic I'm not fussed. Just put them out there for the dirty bastards to see and maybe use. Sort me out a couple and I'll put them out myself. :o)
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Edited Mar 06, 2011, 16:53
Mar 06, 2011, 16:53
|
||
|
neighbourofthedrude wrote: I can't be arsed to read all the replies here so I'll just put in my sugestion and bugger off again. There is only one thing I'd like to see at Avebury/Kennet/Silbury. Won't cost much. Won't spoil the vibe man. RUBBISH BINS ! Make them out of wood/stone/plastic I'm not fussed. Just put them out there for the dirty bastards to see and maybe use. Sort me out a couple and I'll put them out myself. :o) Well be a little fussed ;) they have to be discreet, and easily emptied (not stone) by the local refuse collectors. Not ransacked by foxes at night, and there has to be a discreet sign.. £1000 FINE for leaving/throwing rubbish somewhere....
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Mar 06, 2011, 20:33
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: 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? People like VBB would be able to answer this question better than me Roy; from what I can recall (and I'm happy to stand corrected) there was a residents meeting in Avebury where they agreed to support the development in the hope of generating new life into the village community. The first I knew was when I read about it on a forum, I can't remember who supplied the information but by that time it was a fait accompli and planning permission had been granted. So, yes, the villagers knew about it, as no doubt did EH and NT, but the wider public of which I include myself, didn't get to hear about it until it was too late to make any protestations. Just to give you the full picture, a lot of heated discussion followed but it really was too late to do anything other than chain yourself to the diggers - which I don't think anyone did.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Mar 07, 2011, 08:02
|
||
|
Thanks for your comment Sanctuary. I’m afraid I’m not the author of the feature so can’t really answer your question. Just a suggestion, but you might like to re-post your question in the Leave a comment box over on the Journal where someone in the know might be better able to help.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Mar 07, 2011, 10:27
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: 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? Yes. A few centuries back a local landowner when obliged to put notices up warning of changes they did so in French so objectors couldn't read it. Wiltshire Council planners don't do such things of course, they just make decisions we can't understand!
|
|||
|
Lefturn 22 posts |
Mar 24, 2011, 08:25
|
||
|
jackyboy wrote: 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. http://mvm-planning.kennet.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=415645&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Kennet_aa/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Kennet_aa/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 25, 2011, 07:22
|
||
The link is broken, any chance you can post another?
|
|||
|
jackyboy 145 posts |
Mar 25, 2011, 08:13
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: The link is broken, any chance you can post another? Links working. Planning Explorer East Top Details Page for Planning Application - E/11/0312/FUL Site AddressGalteemore Farm Beckhampton Marlborough SN8 1QJ Application Progress Summary Application Registered14-03-2011 Comments Until21-04-2011 Add Comments HereDate of Committee Decision Appeal Lodged Appeal Decision Application Details Application NumberE/11/0312/FULSite AddressGalteemore Farm Beckhampton Marlborough SN8 1QJ Application TypeFull Planning Development TypeUnknown ProposalThe provision of 561 photovoltaic panels on an existing agricultural building Current StatusREGISTERED ApplicantMr D Hues AgentOakley Planning & Conservation Wards Location Co ordinatesEasting 409024 Northing 168730 ParishesAVEBURY OS Mapsheet Appeal Submitted?No Appeal Decision Case Officer / TelRachel Yeomans 01380 724911 x 4844 Division Planning OfficerRachel Yeomans District Recommendation Determination Level Existing Land UseUnknown Proposed Land UseUnknown
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 25, 2011, 08:54
|
||
|
Cheers for that. There are some pdfs on there that give some good details but it's hard to know if the development is going to be particularly intrusive. So far as impact of developments in general within the World Heritage Site is concerned the local planning committees haven't a very impressive record so as a rule of thumb it might be best for the public to take more note of what some of the consultee bodies say about all such issues - the World Heritage Site Officer, the County Archaeo and EH for instance. There are a number of far more potentially controversial issues coming up where that's likely to be very important.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Mar 25, 2011, 09:34
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Cheers for that. There are some pdfs on there that give some good details but it's hard to know if the development is going to be particularly intrusive. So far as impact of developments in general within the World Heritage Site is concerned the local planning committees haven't a very impressive record so as a rule of thumb it might be best for the public to take more note of what some of the consultee bodies say about all such issues - the World Heritage Site Officer, the County Archaeo and EH for instance. There are a number of far more potentially controversial issues coming up where that's likely to be very important. I think you are not only right but hit a particularly worrying nail on the head.
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 31 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
