Localism? Don't count on it...
Discussion
davepoth said:
I'll agree with you if you show me the one community in the UK that wanted a toxic waste dump. Nobody wants it, it has to go somewhere, so Pickles had to put it somewhere.
Which is exactly why planning can never be democratic. Flagship policy flat on its face at the first hurdle?Pupp said:
Which is exactly why planning can never be democratic. Flagship policy flat on its face at the first hurdle?
It was never meant for NIMBYs, which is going to come back and bite them. Localism will work quite well when people want stuff that the government is unwilling to provide I think, but where locals are attempting to derail national scale projects it's going to fall over.davepoth said:
It was never meant for NIMBYs, which is going to come back and bite them. Localism will work quite well when people want stuff that the government is unwilling to provide I think, but where locals are attempting to derail national scale projects it's going to fall over.
Fancy them not wanting a nuclear waste dump - who'd of thunk it?Randy Winkman said:
Fancy them not wanting a nuclear waste dump - who'd of thunk it?
Absolutely. No community is going to want it, although frankly I wouldn't be too bothered; I doubt it's much more radioactive than the radon that pours out of the ground in these parts, and at least it'll be monitored properly.davepoth said:
Randy Winkman said:
Fancy them not wanting a nuclear waste dump - who'd of thunk it?
Absolutely. No community is going to want it, although frankly I wouldn't be too bothered; I doubt it's much more radioactive than the radon that pours out of the ground in these parts, and at least it'll be monitored properly.
Randy Winkman said:
I'll get in touch and send them to build it up your way then.
I'd have no problem. However I live in Bath, where I need planning permission to sit down on a park bench. And there will be a pressure group complaining about me ruining the city by sitting down and making it look messy.NIMBYS are generally thick, regardless of how safe or not a scheme is there will always be someone opposing it.
In recent years we have had one set of people complaining about Windfarms being built at least 2 miles from the nearest population centres, apparently they are an eyesore (but can't be seen from most places) and are too noisy
.
Oh and in a place with a desperate job shortage there were complaints from ecomentalists at the demoltion of some ships that may have oils and asbestos in them. The demolition was to take place next to a scrapyard, landfill site, a massive chemical plant, and a nuclear power station. Again
In recent years we have had one set of people complaining about Windfarms being built at least 2 miles from the nearest population centres, apparently they are an eyesore (but can't be seen from most places) and are too noisy
. Oh and in a place with a desperate job shortage there were complaints from ecomentalists at the demoltion of some ships that may have oils and asbestos in them. The demolition was to take place next to a scrapyard, landfill site, a massive chemical plant, and a nuclear power station. Again
davepoth said:
Let's look at the evidence. It's an existing landfill, next to RAF Wittering (which was a base of the UK Nuclear Deterrent for 15 years!) several miles from the nearest village. I can't really see why they're moaning so much.
Because it has the word nuclear.If it was a kitten waste dump you wouldn't hear a squeak.
davepoth said:
Let's look at the evidence. It's an existing landfill, next to RAF Wittering (which was a base of the UK Nuclear Deterrent for 15 years!) several miles from the nearest village. I can't really see why they're moaning so much.
I'm guessing they're moronic imbeciles who don't know any better, and can't be bothered to find out.They're not the brightest.... Their main concern won't be safety it'll be their house prices falling, by making such a fuss they've drawn attention to it, now all the area will be known for is the nuclear dump. There was little chance of the decision been reversed on legal grounds so why not play it down as much as possible. Some nimbys near us managed to protest a housing development from 68 houses to 108. Their argument centred around planning policy guidance on density. They stopped the original plan for 68 and lost the increased density application for 108!
Edited by MilnerR on Thursday 26th May 08:06
Trouble is, people really don't have any grasp on what low level nuclear waste is.
All they read is low level NUCLEAR WASTE.
And it has to go somewhere.
Localism is a great idea but it should be applied to issues that only affect the local community, not the population at large. I want our nuclear waste burying somewhere, tbh my idea of what low level nuclear waste consists of means I'd be quite happy for it to be near me.
All they read is low level NUCLEAR WASTE.
And it has to go somewhere.
Localism is a great idea but it should be applied to issues that only affect the local community, not the population at large. I want our nuclear waste burying somewhere, tbh my idea of what low level nuclear waste consists of means I'd be quite happy for it to be near me.
king reactor - inside it.Erm, big holes in National Parks for low level nuclear waste.
Why?, 'cos they don't allow much new housing in those.
Then, cover.
Easy.
Did I offend anyone?, especially those who require medical treatment using low level nuclear methods.
Progress has some negative connotations, we have to decide how best to deal with them.
In a logical way, unhindered by NIMBYs.
Oops, it's about votes.
Why?, 'cos they don't allow much new housing in those.
Then, cover.
Easy.
Did I offend anyone?, especially those who require medical treatment using low level nuclear methods.
Progress has some negative connotations, we have to decide how best to deal with them.
In a logical way, unhindered by NIMBYs.
Oops, it's about votes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff