umpston wrote:
"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?

AIUI LU's case is that they have examined all other locations that either
have or could be provided with rail access to the network and CG is the only
one.

This matter was discussed on here some months ago when a link to the (IIRC)
planning application at Three Rivers council was posted.