The Developer has attached several "Non-Reports" that back up a preposition that the site is Worthless as anything but high value (high density) houses.... we suggest you read them and see if you agree??ppe wrote:What a coincidence to come across this article a few days ago
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comm ... 35496.html
Objections to the development of our 'unused' green spaces shouldn't solely be confined (and I do think they are justified in doing so) to their effect on nearby existing housing and their residents. How about simply trying to preserve them for their intrinsic value as a whole?
I fear that given the ownership of the land will determine its fate to a large degree. But I will be objecting nonetheless even though I don't live anywhere near the site.According to the natural-historical value view, natural entities, including species and some ecosystems, have intrinsic value in virtue of their independence from human design and control (Katz 1992) and their connection to human-independent evolutionary processes (Rolston 1986). This is the conception of intrinsic value that Soulé appeals to in his normative postulate: "Species have value in themselves, a value neither conferred nor revocable, but springing from a species' long evolutionary heritage and potential" (Soule 1985). Although the idea of natural-historical value is conceptually coherent, it has proven to be difficult to justify. That is, it is not easy to explain why natural-historical properties of species and systems are objectively value adding (Sandler 2007).
Good luck to everyone in their protest of this development - and please spread the word.
Doesn't matter anyway, as the Council WILL AGREE - absolutely no alternative use worth pursuing apart from high density housing that pays the Council large amounts of CIL