"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
umpston wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the local
community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and
most of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community.
How can it be important to them in its present state?

Their website http://www.keepcroxleygreen.co.uk/ says that "The land
was compulsory purchased by LUL and they obtained a licence solely
for tipping. Tipping stopped over 25 years ago. LUL gave up their
licence and tried to offload the land firstly to TRDC for £1 and then
to CG Parish Council - for use by the community. It has been used by
the community for years. We want to keep it that way!"

I've never been there but the website includes photos of what looks
like an attractive rural scene. In a case like this where supposedly
"operational land" in fact hasn't been used for many years and has no
track on it, shouldn't the locals have a right to be heard ? This is
not the same as extending or modernising an existing facility - it is
effectively a new development. But perhaps LUL are right and there
is no better place for their depot - so let them prove their case
through the planning process.

If the NIMBYs win where then does the new depot get put?

Somebody else's back yard of course! My point is that we have a planning
system whereby people can object to LUL's proposal. Call that NIMBYism if
you like - but would you be happy with a system where landowners could build
anything they like?

If LUL cannot put the depot anywhere else they will probably win their
case - and the land is already theirs after all. But supposing there was an
alternative 'brownfield' site somewhere else which could be used and might
have fewer environmental objections - but it would cost them a little more
(and it is public money they are spending). What would be the right thing
to do?