Nppf

Just read about the National Planning Policy Framework.

Is any one really taken in by their babble about development only bringing about the lost of habitat only if "the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss"?

Who decides if the "needs for" and the "benefits of" the development "clearly outweigh the loss"? The local people who don't want more housing?  Who have said as much in their meetings and petitions?  Who don't want more people moving into the area until there is work enough for the people already there?  Or the developers who have the bank balance to buy the solicitors and the opinion of the government?  Who have the money to keep putting forward application after application until the local people have not the money or the will to fight it any more?

I'm not a betting woman but I know who I'd put my money on.

And while habitats can be bought and sold for the money gained when the houses are built, the woodland and farm land of England will continue to disappear.  After all, if all else fails they can always slap a compulsory purchase order on the land like they did to the farm that used to be were Thorpe Marriott now stands.

However, all is not lost.

If you feel like standing up and telling the Government and its money bloated cronies were to sling their collective hooks, then the Woodland Trust does charge a large amount of money for membership.  And the money you give them will go to buy the woodlands up before the developers can get to them.  What is more, once the land is owned by the charity then compulsory purchase orders cannot stick.

Lets show the government the meaning of the words "The voice of the people is the voice of God!"