• Welcome to the new B.I.R.D. Forum. Please be sure to read the "New Member / New Registered ? Please Read" thread in the Coffee Shop. This contains some important information. To become a full member ( £5.90 a year ) simply click on your user name near the top on the right I hope you enjoy the new site ................ Jaws ( John )

This could get expensive

DEG5Y

Been there, and had one
Club Sponsor
I've recently watched two large secondary schools merged with two others (as pupil numbers were down). The two brown field sites were then turned into large housing estates with no oposition.
So pupil numbers will now rise.
There would have been oposition to housing estates going on to a green field site but who will object to a school?
 

derek kelly

The Deli lama
Club Sponsor
When the houses were built on the old school site they were supposed to build a supermarket & petrol staion, the houses were built but no supermarket & petrol station.
 

andyBeaker

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Club Sponsor
I think the green belt thing is ass about face. Any brown sites in built up areas should be converted into parks or fields or trees but something green anyway and NOT built on. Allowing town or city boundaries to spread is not a problem providing space is allowed for green bits in-between. I mean between the new builds and not as present rules. The vast bulk of the UK is NOT built on. Fly over the UK at night and we have vast swathes with barely a light. Knock chunks of the big cities down and plant green rather than building new. Make new towns like Milton Keynes.
Brownfield is an interesting subject. I have an involvement down here in an ex-briwnfield site that now has 14 nice (not extravagant) houses on it. Previously a run down eyesore of a car sales and service place for as long as anyone can remember. The upshot is that the adjoining green belt land (which is a nature reserve running from the sea about a mile inland) is less spoiled visually than it was when the garage was there. The local residents provided almost unanimous support for the scheme, everyone has ended up better off.

Not saying that is always the case, but commercial housing development of brownfield can work at times.

Not sure I agree with 'new towns', prefer to protect the open spaces personally. Where does it end??

Someone touched on school land being developed for housing - there is a massive loophole for school grounds being sold for housing, even if it is green belt. This is happening a lot now.
 

Me!

Utterly retired
Club Sponsor
Lunch looked good Beaker... from what I could see from here.
 

Quiney

Registered User
I think the green belt thing is ass about face. Any brown sites in built up areas should be converted into parks or fields or trees but something green anyway and NOT built on. Allowing town or city boundaries to spread is not a problem providing space is allowed for green bits in-between. I mean between the new builds and not as present rules. The vast bulk of the UK is NOT built on. Fly over the UK at night and we have vast swathes with barely a light. Knock chunks of the big cities down and plant green rather than building new. Make new towns like Milton Keynes.

Agree Bill. Locally, then builders aquire the brown belt land but because of the additional costs don't want to build on them. Then because the housing tagrets in the local plan are not being met, the local council gives permission for the green sectors. We have both 'green belt' and 'countryside' areas. The countryside areas, whilst being fields, are not protected in the same way as the true 'green belt'
 

Cougar377

Express elevator to hell
Staff member
Moderator
Club Sponsor
Either is acceptable, if you knew the English language you would have known that.

AB mode on.

"nor" indicates a secondary negative, whereas "or" indicates an alternative.

Your sentence stated "I am neither typical or under educated". Starting your sentence with "neither" indicates that there should be a secondary negative condition. i.e. that you are NEITHER "typical" NOR are you "under educated".
Your use of "or" contradicts this. You should use EITHER with OR if you are indicating an alternative. i.e. you are EITHER "typical" OR you are "under educated".

Seemples.


AB mode off.
 

sr71caspar

B̶a̶n̶n̶e̶d̶
Club Sponsor
Centaur mode on...


Centaur is the site pedant.


Centaur mode off...






Just saying.
 

andyBeaker

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Club Sponsor
I didn't know I had a mode.

Commode, yes.

Mode, not to my knowledge.
 

derek kelly

The Deli lama
Club Sponsor
AB mode on.

"nor" indicates a secondary negative, whereas "or" indicates an alternative.

Your sentence stated "I am neither typical or under educated". Starting your sentence with "neither" indicates that there should be a secondary negative condition. i.e. that you are NEITHER "typical" NOR are you "under educated".
Your use of "or" contradicts this. You should use EITHER with OR if you are indicating an alternative. i.e. you are EITHER "typical" OR you are "under educated".

Seemples.


AB mode off.
Nor can only be used with a negative, or can be used with either positive or negative.
 
Top