Jack Taylor wrote:
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message
...

1) Why should cost not form part of the consideration, after all the
money will have to come from somewhere, in this instance most likely
the local taxpayers pocket.

2) Why should be people not have to put up with the temporary
inconvenience that improvements cause?

As was suggested before, NIMBYISM.

Interesting that we never hear of NIMBYISM when housing estates are
expanded out of town to engulf commercial properties that were
previously remote, subsequently leading to the businesses having to
either close down or relocate due to hostility of the new neighbours.
;-))

Not entirely true. I live in a place where a foundry has been working for
over 300 years, although the scale of operation has contracted somewhat. The
area is now an almost idyllic location with lots of woodland and greenery.
There are a number of local residents who think the foundry should be shut
simply because "times have changed".


What assurances will Metronet receive that, if they do incur
additional expenditure by locating further away from Croxley Green,
the local council will not then plan a new housing estate for
sometime in the next twenty years that will *still* result in the
depot being surrounded by residential properties?

Somewhere between "not a lot" and "naff all" I'd guess.