 |
| A bit of that countryside the CPRE wants to save |
People don't want to live in run-down "regeneration" areas but this doesn't stop the CPRE from pressing its NIMBY di tutti NIMBYs button:
'By ensuring that run-down areas, which are crying out for regeneration, are prioritised we can build more of the homes so desperately needed in areas where people want to live, while simultaneously preventing the needless loss of countryside to new housing.’See kids, in the world of NIMBYs like CPRE, you're going to be living in high rise rabbit hutches next to a railway line on the edge of an industrial estate. This isn't really to "protect the countryside" but to allow people in million pound houses down in places like Surrey to protect the tiny bit of the countryside we actually need to build family homes for the next generation.
The CPRE is right we do desperately need housing in "areas where people want to live" but those areas are not in the derelict inner city, they're down in suburbia on the fringes of the city. The very places CPRE say represent "needless loss" of countryside.
....
2 comments:
The CPRE members probably mostly live in nice houses in nice places, but want the plebs to be housed in run-down, unappealing areas where they wouldn't dream of making a home. There's a huge streak of snobbery in a blanket opposition to greenfield development.
My latest letter from the CPRE has four ahem models on the envelope superimposed on a meadow of yellow flowers with literally no-one there.
They are holding signs saying "We can't afford the houses being built", "We're losing countryside for no reason", "Bad development is being forced on us", and "Support our campaign for change".
Post a Comment