This morning we received an official acknowledgement from Assembly Member Sandy Mewies and MP David Hanson of our signatures on a recent petition against the proposed planning for the erection of 10 affordable housing units outside of the village envelope.The recent proposal for this housing project seems to have galvanised the village into action, especially as the Community Council has very publicly let the village down somewhat by not passing on the villagers concerns and objections voiced from a very lively public meeting.
Initially, the lefty in me, supported the idea of affordable housing for needy local people; God knows rural house prices especially in the more scenic villages, are so out of the range of first time buyers, it is not too hard to imagine that in 50 years time, many communities have been priced out of existence. However, the deeper I looked into this initiative, the more I have been left with a rather bad taste in my mouth.
The omission by the community council to pass on the local people's concerns was worrying enough, even though the actual power of the council is accepted to be low; but it is the mistakes made by other local villages such as Lixum, that underlines that this sort of affordable housing initiative is not perhaps as "altruistic" or as well thought through as it was initially presented.
Apparently there were local authority assurances that there was an overwhelming need for local people to take on affordable properties in Lixum; and sadly that just did not happen.
Families with their own problems and agendas were "bused" into the village community from "all over" and the resulting conflict seems to have caused innumerable and potentially long standing problems.
The council cannot ensure that local people may utilize these houses and the definitions of the word "local" on the county council website remains interestingly vague.....there seems to be much manoeuvring behind the scenes to get this project off the ground, and luckily, only recently has the village population found out what is afoot!
I hope the petition will stave off the planning. Personally I feel that the village does not have the facilities and amenities to sustain more homes, and the worry of a more antisocial element entering the village from outside is, in my experience perfectly justifiable, especially as there is a consensus that 10 houses would be only the tip of the iceberg!
I, as well as a score of others, will be watching all aspects of this proposal in the future and the whole affair has sparked interest in making sure that other local "projects" do not slip under the villagers' radar from now on
Off to the cinema later to see the French thriller L'instinct de mort (2008) "mini" review later
I'm a parish councillor in our village John, so I know exactly what you're talking about. We do find though, that it's difficult to get people round here interested in local community issues, until someone comes along with a planning application, and then everyone turns up to the PC meeting - it's usually one man and a dog!!
ReplyDeleteKathy
ReplyDeletethe good news about the whole planning thing is that it has provided a spring board for some of us in the village to take an interest in EVERY issue from now on!
I can't claim to understand your particular community, but - as you know - I've spent much of my life living in a small rural community, and still today have regular contact with one.
ReplyDeleteProblems are only ‘problems’ when they are that which is ‘out of place’. Integrating ‘problem’ families would perhaps be easier if the local community were empowered and motivated to do so, and the authorities allowed them to.
In respect of empowerment, my experience suggests there is rather too much self interest and cynical disregard for meaningful local democracy in all modes of local governance. Local government in particular has always served a narrow range of interests, paradoxically few of them actually ‘local’. Further, direct intervention (which, in most cases is reasonable, not ‘vigilantism’) is at best frowned upon, and worse, dealt with over-zealously by local agencies (including in particular the police) who seem part-terrified and part-bewildered at the thought of genuine community participation and the ability of localities to ‘select’ their leadership in ways other than through the (increasingly meaningless) ballot-box.
In respect of motivation, I find that selfishness and ‘nimbyism’ have always characterised the experience of ‘local’ community. My experience of communities that privilege the ‘ideal’ of ‘localness’ are often motivated by - and derive their identity from - resistance, conflict and self-interest rather than a meaningful communality. Everyone has a stake, but this are often routed in the personal and not the communal, despite fine words and pronouncements. Most people express a preference for living in a ‘good community’, but then again, most people would also express a preference for ‘free money’ and ‘no taxes’. But ask for genuine engagement and they cannot be found, unless, of course, you threaten their personal needs (parking, schools).
Genuine ‘community leaders’ who are able to disregard their personal interests and needs are a rare species indeed, and perhaps always have been. This is not a ‘modern day’ issue per se, just different forms of threats/transgression operating in a very narrow local context (fifty years ago it would have been ‘coloured’[sic] people, or single parents). I don’t know what the solution is, other than to keep challenging the validity and representational capacity of local government.
Nx
humm interesting but I disagree about your comment about the community "integrating" problem families...
ReplyDeleteinner city/ or urban families that oftern lead battling,chaotic and disrespectful lives have problems that are not always solved by moving them into small communities.. I do actually believe in "not in our own back yard" Nige.....
respect is a two way process....I do not want to live alongside people that cannot or will not respect me or community rules...
If that makes me a bad person...so be it
No, wasn’t implying you were a ‘bad person’, because I am rather ‘guilty’ of nimbyism myself. In my community the council’s response to ‘travellers’ is an issue.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the liberal side of me respects and supports the lifestyle, yet I am enraged to discover the council waiving council tax and providing ‘free’ services to them. The council’s argument is ‘human rights’, conveniently forgetting about the ‘human rights’ of the elderly folk in the local care home from which they have just withdrawn funding, and the ‘human rights’ of single people not to pay for the excessive services that are provided to child-rearing and affluent middle-class folk. There has been an increase in crime that may or may not be associated with their arrival, yet the police are refusing to investigate as they do not wish to be viewed as ‘bullying’ a ‘vulnerable’ group.
Sadly, the whole thing is an utter mess and, I’m afraid, I lay the blame totally at the door of the local council and the police.
Hey ho. Nx