Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
28th December 2005, 10:16 PM
True, but more could be done to recycle building aggregate!
Just digging up lumps of the m25 and replacing it with new stuff just won't do anymore!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
28th December 2005, 11:55 PM
Maybe getting a bit off-topic here, but I believe that there are government policies/planning guidance and tax incentives to do just that, and much more of it is re-used now than used to be the case. However, demolition waste is not suitable for all aggregate applications, so we'll never get rid of gravel extraction altogether.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
29th December 2005, 09:58 AM
'Deepdigger' suggested we need more recycling building materials in road construction. When the Germans replaced almost the entire network of decrepit motorways in the former German Democratic Republic, the old concrete was usually ground up and used quite satisfactorily as a base for the new roads; mind you, the energy used to do probably reduced the environmental friendliness of the exercise.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
2nd January 2006, 04:33 PM
Troll,
Go Move Shift?
Rather than telling farmers they can't farm, would it not be better to provide grants to protect manage and enhance any archaeology on their lands.
I suggest you have a look at schemes such as the Tir Gofal which has been running in Wales for a few years now and attempts to do this. Encourages farmers to manage the resources on their land, including historic and archaeological elements. This has lead to the discovery (and management) of a large number of sites during farm visits, especially vernacular farm buildings.
While this scheme is not perfect, it has made a positive contribution, as well as rasing awareness of archaeology in rural communities
These were part of the Agenda 2000 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. I think that previously there was no cultural heritage component to CAP which was always a travesty.
There was also a similar Common Agricultural Policy scheme in the Netherlands. This was stopped due to too many double entendres....
[:p]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
3rd January 2006, 12:01 AM
Greetings.Some farmers do very nicely out of the ridiculous set aside system.Paying farmers not to work certain areas of land is not out of the question.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
3rd January 2006, 01:33 PM
Possibly (and I'm thinking aloud here) this is a little unfair on other developers, who are also basically making their money out of land use but have to pay for destruction of the heritage. Maybe farmers should have to apply for planning permission to farm any land, on anuual or perdiodic basis, and be subject to PPG16 conditions if there are any remains known or suspected on the land?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
3rd January 2006, 01:40 PM
Absolutely. And why not? Farmers can be seen in an equal light to developers when levels of consistant damage/threat to the finite resource is taken into account.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
3rd January 2006, 02:12 PM
I agree absolutely, but can you imagine any political party tackling the powerful farming lobby after the challenge mounted to the banning of a bloodsport with minority appeal? Hell the government pretty much capitulated when a few selfish petrol users took some direct action a few years back. The same people would be out in force if "we" start meddling with "their" land and livelihood.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
3rd January 2006, 02:27 PM
Precisely sir.And there we have it.An informed and enlightened (with the obvious exception of the hunting apologists) public will indeed stand up and confront the government.When does the heritage lobby get their turn?
The IFA pledged to raise the value of archaeology/ists in the eyes of the public years ago.They did no such thing and as a result, the Thornborough campaign is missing about 60 million people...
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
3rd January 2006, 02:45 PM
Quote:quote
ossibly (and I'm thinking aloud here) this is a little unfair on other developers, who are also basically making their money out of land use but have to pay for destruction of the heritage. Maybe farmers should have to apply for planning permission to farm any land, on anuual or perdiodic basis, and be subject to PPG16 conditions if there are any remains known or suspected on the land?
That would be very unfair on the farmers.
Developers only have to do this once, and then only when they are making a change in the use of land that would cause disturbance (e.g. taking farmland and putting houses on it). If permission is refused, no-one loses their job. Farmers generally are only continuing to do what has been done on that land for generations, and if you stop them they will become unemployed.
Where they are taking previously uncultivated land into arable production, then there are rules (and specific EIA regulations) that they need to go through to get permission.
No land-user of any kind that I know of has to apply for planning permission periodically; its once-and-for-all in most cases. There are circumstances like windfarms, where the permission lasts 25 years, and there is a planning condition requiring that the windfarm is dismantled after that time. I believe that the likely outcome is that in 24 years the windfarmers will apply for a new planning permission to keep the turbines.
What would be fairer would be to use one of the existing agri-environmental schemes, or create a new one, to help take land out of production (or change the type of production to a less damaging one). This is being done in parts of the country. Subsidy would be fair here, because you are depriving the farmers of income by preventing them from using the land in the most productive way.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
