London as a National Park?!?! Yeah, why not?

Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by girasol, Jan 27, 2015.

?

Would you like London to become a National Park? (read before voting!!!)

  1. Yes please

    56.3%
  2. mmm, no - and here's why (post below)

    37.5%
  3. pigeons, foxes, squirrels and parrots, cats and dogs too! (obligatory pointless 3rd option)

    6.3%
  1. hash tag

    hash tag member

    I thought this was a 5 minute wonder, but was still being discussed and advanced on the radio this morning. Maybe it has got legs?

    Greater London National Park City
     
  2. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    No, it's still as meaningless now as it was then. It still makes no sense to apply the planning legislation for National Parks to London. And if the planning restrictions for National Parks don't apply then it isn't a National Park.
     
    muscovyduck and budd like this.
  3. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    Another bump for this, 301 wards have declared support along with Mayor Sadiq Khan. Check if your ward has done so, if not you can write to them (a majority of 328 wards is needed, nearly there!!!!), the template letter can be found here:
    Recruit your ward

    More info on the whole campaign here:
    Greater London National Park City Initiative
     
  4. ATOMIC SUPLEX

    ATOMIC SUPLEX Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3

    I'd like there to be something to protect what we have. A new 'sports' school was given the go ahead in Croydon, that is being built on . . . a school sports ground (essentially wiping it out). I don't want stupid things like this to escalate. I have a lot of wonderful green areas around me, large parks and woods. I'm sure a lot of people would like to build tall buildings all over it.
     
    girasol likes this.
  5. pengaleng

    pengaleng Lil' J Pengele PhD. The Angel of Sesh

    fuck that, them parakeets can altready fuck off, i dont need them shits protected
     
  6. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model every man and every woman is a star

    had a dream where i saw some dead parakeets last night.
     
    sealion and pengaleng like this.
  7. pengaleng

    pengaleng Lil' J Pengele PhD. The Angel of Sesh

    good I hope they all die.
     
  8. Bahnhof Strasse

    Bahnhof Strasse A-wob a-bob bob

    Odd, I had a dream I shot a load of parakeets on Saturday night :hmm:
     
    sealion and pengaleng like this.
  9. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model every man and every woman is a star

    no, these ones had been chopped up, not your ones
     
    sealion and Bahnhof Strasse like this.
  10. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    And as yet another reminder, here is the National Planning Policy Framework, which is the overarching planning guidance for the UK and against which all planning decisions are ultimately reviewed:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

    Paragraphs 115 and 116 say:

    Paragraph 115 means that if London becomes a National Park, that means "great weight" will be given in all planning decisions to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. Basically, planning authorities will be forced to assess anything that damages landscape and scenic beauty as being of great harm, which means an overweighting of great benefit will be needed in order to do any development, no matter how small.

    Paragraph 116 says that planning permission for anything classed as "major development" (which typically means developments of a hectare and above, with a bunch of other caveats) will be refused as a matter of principle unless the developer can show exceptional circumstances, which is not straightforward at all.

    This is the national policy. I'm not making it up, I've had to fuck around with it for the last 8 years. If something is a National Park, you just don't build anything on it unless there is absolutely, positively no choice. It is not a designation that is compatible with an urban area. There is a reason that other National Parks have their boundaries carefully drawn to avoid the towns they encompass.

    In summary: "National Park" is not just a pretty idea, it is a legal designation with legal planning consequences that are incompatible with urban environments.
     
    muscovyduck and Enviro like this.
  11. pengaleng

    pengaleng Lil' J Pengele PhD. The Angel of Sesh


    YES
     
  12. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    The mechanism in place to take care of this is the regional planning policy. All local areas are required to produce local plans (for local people, nothing for you here). These will stipulate the principles on which local planning decisions are taken, so long as it doesn't conflict with the NPPF and other national guidance. The problem is that so little of the population is engaged in local politics, which is where all this stuff is resolved.
     
    muscovyduck and Bahnhof Strasse like this.
  13. Bahnhof Strasse

    Bahnhof Strasse A-wob a-bob bob

    They do the most horrifying shits, look like a series of giant blood-clots splattered about the place.
     
  14. dessiato

    dessiato Life is a lemon, and I want my money back

    Rather than designating the whole of London national park wouldn't it be better to put the same level of protection on those areas that truly merit the designation?
     
  15. BlueSquareThing

    BlueSquareThing With chips

    I think that's what they're doing in Toronto which is/will be given national park status. Probably.
     
    dessiato and girasol like this.
  16. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    Toronto presumably is not subject to UK planning law though.
     
  17. Bahnhof Strasse

    Bahnhof Strasse A-wob a-bob bob

    We might be subject to Ontario planning law come March 2019 though :thumbs:
     
  18. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    Whilst it seems well intentioned the whole idea doesn't seem to fit for reasons pointed out. I would also worry that necessary planning decisions made in London could be used as precedent in other national parks.
     
    muscovyduck and kabbes like this.
  19. planetgeli

    planetgeli There's no future in England's dreaming

    Canning Town, AONB.
     
    Bahnhof Strasse and Puddy_Tat like this.
  20. BlueSquareThing

    BlueSquareThing With chips

    In terms of national park designation the principles are pretty similar though - if anything the Canadians can afford to be a lot pickier.
     
  21. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    Are the principles similar? What does the Canadian equivalent of the National planning policy framework have to say about it?
     
  22. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    As some people seem worried about planning permissions: are those the planning permissions to build flats no one can afford? Or office buildings? In that case I wish this would actually stop it. It won't though, sadly. Nothing seems to stop this shit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  23. bemused

    bemused Well-Known Member

    I'd like to see it, maybe it would prevent smaller spaces like woods and greens being built on.
     
    girasol likes this.
  24. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    It stops anybody building anything (except in exceptional circumstance). Road developments, rail developments, housing developments, recreation developments. retail developments, office developments, all of it. London would become frozen in time. You can’t just hand wave all development away as “flats no one can afford and office buildings”.

    I’m not “worried” about planning permission either. It’s not done vague emotional reaction. I’ve pointed you to the specific paragraphs in the national planning policy that state in black and white what the restrictions are for National Parks.

    There is literally nothing but headaches ahead for Londoners if this insanity were to go through.
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  25. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    London becoming a National Park will stop ANYTHING being built? :D Where's the evidence for that???? I'm not sure why you're even saying that, because it actually doesn't make sense. Of course things will still be built, except they will have to take into account that nature can't just be fucked over in the name of profit, HOPEFULLY. That can only be a good thing. I wish that was the case actually, but I don't even think it'll go that far in terms of planning permissions.
     
  26. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    Just protect those small spaces then. What are you doing at local planning level to achieve this, if you are worried about it? The mechanisms already exist. You don’t have to place the whole of London in aspic.

    This is classic “somebody (else) should do something and I can’t be bothered to understand how it works so I’ll call for a massively inappropriate and excessive blanket response” bollocks
     
  27. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    “Of course they would do something they aren’t allowed to do if they sign up to something they shouldn’t sign up to!”

    Point me to the parts of NPPF Paragraphs 115 and 116 that permit what you are talking about please.

    What do you think a National Park actually is, ffs?
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  28. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    I really don't understand your objection to it, because looking at the big picture, to me this is makes perfect sense. But oh well, if everyone thought the same wouldn't the world be boring?
     
  29. bemused

    bemused Well-Known Member

    Who said anything about placing London in aspic?
     
  30. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    Greater London National Park City Initiative

    The first video in there explains it. Watch it ;)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice