DEVELOPERS could
be banned from
building virtually
any new private
homes in the New
Forest National Park.
Park bosses say residential
development should be
restricted to social and
affordable housing to meet
the needs of local people.
Communities affected by
any changes will include
Ashurst, Brockenhurst,
Lyndhurst and Sway.
advertisement
Park chiefs say social housing
should comprise at least
50 per cent of new schemes,
with the balance being made
up of "intermediate housing"
- shared equity and
shared ownership properties.
Some private housing
might be allowed on newly
acquired sites, but only if it
was needed to ensure the viability
of the other properties.
The move has come under
fire from National Park
Authority (NPA) member
Maureen Holding, who is
also a district councillor for
Brocken-hurst.
She said: "We require a balance
of housing that will
enhance the local community.
People living in social
housing need jobs and we
need money from market
housing to plough into the
local economy."
However, the proposed new
policy is likely to make little
difference in practice.
Almost all housebuilding in
the district takes place in
urban communities such as
Totton, Lymington and New
Milton, which are outside the
National Park.
Strict conservation policies
that aim to protect Forest villages
mean virtually no new
construction is possible,
other than the replacement
of individual homes.
One of the area's biggest
builders is New Milton's
Parkcrest Construction. A
spokesman said: "Any
changes wouldn't affect us
because we don't build within
the Park boundary."
Nick Evans, the NPA's senior
planning officer, said:
"We have looked at this from
the point of view that there
will not be that much scope
for new housing in the
Forest. What housing is built
should be affordable to meet
the needs of the local community."
The new policy is outlined
in a report to NPA members.
It says: "Given the limited
scale of future development
within the National Park it is
considered appropriate to
seek only social housing."
Posted by: Andy, Locks Heath on 10:57am Sat 5 Jul 08
And so it begins...or rather began, when New Labour decided that centralised control should even overrule local government (which is of course tory so doesn't even count). Central Government hadn't interfered enough in the New Forest so clearly something had to be done. Yes of course, National Park status. So what is the National Park Authority for? The New Forest in its current form is a result of man's interference and management of the environment for a thousand years - it is NOT a natural environment. The plains, the bogs, the woods - every aspect of the forest is made by man, and the people who understand that better than anyone are the Commoners who have safeguarded the Forest's heritage ever since the Conquest. But that is not enough for New Labour. No, a QANGO consisting of London based Civil Servants and failed policians clearly know best. We need rules, and then more rules to overrule the old rules. The Forest needs meetings! Meetings need plush new offices! Meetings need to justify their existence by deciding things! The Forest needs equal opportunities, it needs to become more convenient for caravans, it needs diversity, in Newlab speak it needs to be diverse in a relevant and a very real way in real terms for real people. It needs more officials. And wait for it folks - It needs to be carbon neutral! How long before some NPA numpty spouts those words?
And so it begins...or rather began, when New Labour decided that centralised control should even overrule local government (which is of course tory so doesn't even count). Central Government hadn't interfered enough in the New Forest so clearly something had to be done. Yes of course, National Park status. So what is the National Park Authority for? The New Forest in its current form is a result of man's interference and management of the environment for a thousand years - it is NOT a natural environment. The plains, the bogs, the woods - every aspect of the forest is made by man, and the people who understand that better than anyone are the Commoners who have safeguarded the Forest's heritage ever since the Conquest. But that is not enough for New Labour. No, a QANGO consisting of London based Civil Servants and failed policians clearly know best. We need rules, and then more rules to overrule the old rules. The Forest needs meetings! Meetings need plush new offices! Meetings need to justify their existence by deciding things! The Forest needs equal opportunities, it needs to become more convenient for caravans, it needs diversity, in Newlab speak it needs to be diverse in a relevant and a very real way in real terms for real people. It needs more officials. And wait for it folks - It needs to be carbon neutral! How long before some NPA numpty spouts those words?
Posted by: Skeptikl, soton on 11:29am Sat 5 Jul 08
Andy - The best blog I have seen for a long while. NuLabs knowledge of rural matters could be written on the first page of the book - John Prescotts successes.
Andy - The best blog I have seen for a long while. NuLabs knowledge of rural matters could be written on the first page of the book - John Prescotts successes.
Posted by: Children, of the New Forest on 11:32am Sat 5 Jul 08
Andy is right on the button. After 2 years all there is to show are the cheap & pathetic boundary signs. The Forest is beginning to look tatty with no attempt to prevent mobile snack bars proliferating.
Litter is everywhere and nothing is done to stop the rat run motorists from speeding and blaming the animals for getting in their way. [bold]The expensive quango should be held to account and answerable to those who live in the Forest[/bold]
Andy is right on the button. After 2 years all there is to show are the cheap & pathetic boundary signs. The Forest is beginning to look tatty with no attempt to prevent mobile snack bars proliferating.
Litter is everywhere and nothing is done to stop the rat run motorists from speeding and blaming the animals for getting in their way. The expensive quango should be held to account and answerable to those who live in the Forest
Posted by: Skeptik., soton on 11:54am Sat 5 Jul 08
NuLabs desire to destroy is at the heart of this, be it good schools, the armed forces, and indeed the ancient system that ran the forest for generations - commoners that even had the sense to regulate themselves. As for QANGOs the government run family business, just see how many of these leeches are related to MPs or senior civil servants, or lickspittle members of the local mafia/party.
NuLabs desire to destroy is at the heart of this, be it good schools, the armed forces, and indeed the ancient system that ran the forest for generations - commoners that even had the sense to regulate themselves. As for QANGOs the government run family business, just see how many of these leeches are related to MPs or senior civil servants, or lickspittle members of the local mafia/party.
Posted by: Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm Sat 5 Jul 08
Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest!
The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere.
I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done.
For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage!
Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all.
By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest!
The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere.
I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done.
For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage!
Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all.
By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
Posted by: Andy, Locks Heath on 12:52pm Sat 5 Jul 08
Yes I was born and raised in the new Forest near Wootton. I've lived in Locks Heath for only five years . I definitely do NOT want the forest to become convenient for caravans at the expense of wildlife - where do you get that from in what I said? I am also very much in favour of local housing that young people in the Forest can afford. I abhor the notion that it becomes a preserved picture postcard box cover purely for the benefit of tourists and under the control of some public Quango. That's one of the reasons I despise this centralised control. You are right though that I meant to say it was man who DRAINED the bogs rather than created them, and now we have the NPA wanting to block the drainage ditches up again and destroy grazing in the process. We are on the same side, Commoner, I don't quite know why your criticism is so strong.
Yes I was born and raised in the new Forest near Wootton. I've lived in Locks Heath for only five years . I definitely do NOT want the forest to become convenient for caravans at the expense of wildlife - where do you get that from in what I said? I am also very much in favour of local housing that young people in the Forest can afford. I abhor the notion that it becomes a preserved picture postcard box cover purely for the benefit of tourists and under the control of some public Quango. That's one of the reasons I despise this centralised control. You are right though that I meant to say it was man who DRAINED the bogs rather than created them, and now we have the NPA wanting to block the drainage ditches up again and destroy grazing in the process. We are on the same side, Commoner, I don't quite know why your criticism is so strong.
Posted by: Commoner, New Forest on 1:19pm Sat 5 Jul 08
What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'?
Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance.
The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit.
I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread.
What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'?
Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance.
The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit.
I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread.
Commoner wrote:-
"from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out"
Perhaps he moved out - like me?
Please try to engage brain before touching the keyboard.
Commoner wrote:-
"from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out"
Perhaps he moved out - like me?
Please try to engage brain before touching the keyboard.
Posted by: Steven, Southampton on 2:03pm Sat 5 Jul 08
People are forced to move out in most reasonable places in hampshire i would guess. I lived in chandlers ford and was forced to move out due to high prices . It is not the forest alone which suffers from this. Yes it is bad but i put it down to "thats life" we all have a need for a house but where we live is a want . We have to realise this and understand that just because your family have lived somewhere in the past things change. Maybe when I work my way up the wage ladder I will be able to move into an area I "want" to live. This gives me a drive so why don't others think like this.
People are forced to move out in most reasonable places in hampshire i would guess. I lived in chandlers ford and was forced to move out due to high prices . It is not the forest alone which suffers from this. Yes it is bad but i put it down to "thats life" we all have a need for a house but where we live is a want . We have to realise this and understand that just because your family have lived somewhere in the past things change. Maybe when I work my way up the wage ladder I will be able to move into an area I "want" to live. This gives me a drive so why don't others think like this.
Posted by: New Forest Fencer on 2:15pm Sat 5 Jul 08
Commoners just sit there moaning about their lot when the high house prices are helped along by their forebears selling their hovels to 'incomers'. The money must have partly cascaded down to later generations. Lots of them care so much about their animals that they won't put their hands in their pockets for a paltry couple of quid to buy reflective collars. Luckily this cash shortage doesn't stop them sitting in the pub moaning about car drivers, or buying computers to moan about everyone who doesn't want to conform to the wishes of these few hundred commoners. Fence the roads so that the tax paying motorists can enjoy the highway without fear of Al-Dobbin the suicidal horse jumping through the windscreen.
Commoners just sit there moaning about their lot when the high house prices are helped along by their forebears selling their hovels to 'incomers'. The money must have partly cascaded down to later generations. Lots of them care so much about their animals that they won't put their hands in their pockets for a paltry couple of quid to buy reflective collars. Luckily this cash shortage doesn't stop them sitting in the pub moaning about car drivers, or buying computers to moan about everyone who doesn't want to conform to the wishes of these few hundred commoners. Fence the roads so that the tax paying motorists can enjoy the highway without fear of Al-Dobbin the suicidal horse jumping through the windscreen.
Posted by: Andy, Locks Heath on 2:39pm Sat 5 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Commoner[/bold] wrote:
What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'?
Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance.
The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit.
I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread. [/quote] I was using a lot of irony Commoner. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious. There were once council houses in the Forest even in villages like Brockenhurst and Sway to cater for local working people, built under the auspices of parish and district councils. It is not likely to ever happen again under the auspices of the NPA.
Commoner wrote:
What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'?
Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance.
The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit.
I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread.
I was using a lot of irony Commoner. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious. There were once council houses in the Forest even in villages like Brockenhurst and Sway to cater for local working people, built under the auspices of parish and district councils. It is not likely to ever happen again under the auspices of the NPA.
Posted by: Dean, Southampton on 3:28pm Sat 5 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Andy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Commoner[/bold] wrote:
What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'?
Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance.
The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit.
I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread. [/quote] I was using a lot of irony Commoner. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious. There were once council houses in the Forest even in villages like Brockenhurst and Sway to cater for local working people, built under the auspices of parish and district councils. It is not likely to ever happen again under the auspices of the NPA. [/quote] It wasn't the Labour party who permitted the disounted purchase of council homes which is the policy at the root of your complaints.
Andy wrote:
Commoner wrote:
What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'?
Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance.
The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit.
I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread.
I was using a lot of irony Commoner. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious. There were once council houses in the Forest even in villages like Brockenhurst and Sway to cater for local working people, built under the auspices of parish and district councils. It is not likely to ever happen again under the auspices of the NPA.
It wasn't the Labour party who permitted the disounted purchase of council homes which is the policy at the root of your complaints.
Posted by: Forest Gump, Bashley on 3:40pm Sat 5 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Andy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Commoner[/bold] wrote: What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'? Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance. The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit. I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread. [/quote] I was using a lot of irony Commoner. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious. There were once council houses in the Forest even in villages like Brockenhurst and Sway to cater for local working people, built under the auspices of parish and district councils. It is not likely to ever happen again under the auspices of the NPA. [/quote] You are right, there were council houses built in the New Forest. There was a massive council house building programme in the late 40s and early 50s, but that level has never been matched.
Then 'the right to buy' came, and there was never an attempt to build a replacement for the ones sold.
Many forest families lived in tied cottages, attached to farms. Farms were mechanised, and labourers not needed, so they lost their homes, which were then sold as holiday homes to outsiders.
Did anyone complain? Not on your life!
More recently, with the new laws banning the hunting with dogs, all hell was let loose because a few kennel masters would be redundant, and would have to find another job and, of course, housing. The 'powers that be' kicked up a fuss when their 'sport' was under threat, but didn't give a toss when the farm labourer was evicted from his tied cottage.
The New Forest has always been run by THEM with little consideration for US. I am glad that the government is taking an interest in the area.
Andy wrote:
Commoner wrote: What exactly did you mean when you wrote, 'It needs to become more convenient for caravans'? Well, you say that you despise the Central Control, but it is generations of Tory Local Control, that has seen little or no provision to encourage or enable local families to stay in the area, but has welcomed the moneyed people in, and enabled them to build with little hinderance. The commoners with the expertise have gradually been forced out, to be replaced by those who see common rights as a means of claiming a tax benefit. I welcome the interest that central government is now taking, because that way I feel that I will be getting a better deal and the benefits will be more evenly spread.
I was using a lot of irony Commoner. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious. There were once council houses in the Forest even in villages like Brockenhurst and Sway to cater for local working people, built under the auspices of parish and district councils. It is not likely to ever happen again under the auspices of the NPA.
You are right, there were council houses built in the New Forest. There was a massive council house building programme in the late 40s and early 50s, but that level has never been matched.
Then 'the right to buy' came, and there was never an attempt to build a replacement for the ones sold.
Many forest families lived in tied cottages, attached to farms. Farms were mechanised, and labourers not needed, so they lost their homes, which were then sold as holiday homes to outsiders.
Did anyone complain? Not on your life!
More recently, with the new laws banning the hunting with dogs, all hell was let loose because a few kennel masters would be redundant, and would have to find another job and, of course, housing. The 'powers that be' kicked up a fuss when their 'sport' was under threat, but didn't give a toss when the farm labourer was evicted from his tied cottage.
The New Forest has always been run by THEM with little consideration for US. I am glad that the government is taking an interest in the area.
[quote]Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today
Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
[/quote]
What a joke!
What expertise are you handing down?
There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy.
The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road.
It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies.
The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years.
Commoners? i don't think so. really!!
Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today
Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
What a joke!
What expertise are you handing down?
There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy.
The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road.
It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies.
The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years.
Posted by: Forest Gump, Bashley on 5:18pm Sat 5 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Mr Jenkins[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense. [/quote] What a joke! What expertise are you handing down? There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy. The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road. It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies. The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years. Commoners? i don't think so. really!![/quote] I am so pleased to hear that you decided not to move into the area as there is an abundance of superior beings already.
Mr Jenkins wrote:
Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
What a joke! What expertise are you handing down? There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy. The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road. It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies. The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years. Commoners? i don't think so. really!!
I am so pleased to hear that you decided not to move into the area as there is an abundance of superior beings already.
[quote][bold]Mr Jenkins[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today
Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
[/quote]
What a joke!
What expertise are you handing down?
There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy.
The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road.
It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies.
The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years.
Commoners? i don't think so. really!![/quote] More like you couldn't afford to live there after all, sound like you got your head stuck up your @ss.
Mr Jenkins wrote:
Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today
Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
What a joke!
What expertise are you handing down?
There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy.
The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road.
It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies.
The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years.
Commoners? i don't think so. really!!
More like you couldn't afford to live there after all, sound like you got your head stuck up your @ss.
[quote]k on 6:18pm today
[quote][bold]Mr Jenkins[/bold] wrote: [quote]Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense. [/quote] What a joke! What expertise are you handing down? There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy. The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road. It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies. The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years. Commoners? i don't think so. really!![/quote] More like you couldn't afford to live there after all, sound like you got your head stuck up your @ss.
[/quote]
We are in the forest. We were downsizing from a house in a much nicer part than Lyndhurst to be nearer the shops. The truth is, the struggle to travel to Lymington, though slightly further, is worth it, for not seeing the trash that has driving the REAL country lovers away from Lyndhurst.
The tide is changing for the sad labourites that think they'll trounce through beautiful parts of England. Very soon a real government will put paid to these pathetic plans.
Then when your children are old enough to leave the hovel, you will have to follow them back to a nest in the city, rather than they taking a right they ill deserve.
Commoners are one thing, peasants are another.
Commoner; a person who has a joint right in common land.
Peasant; An uncouth, crude, or ill-bred person; a boor
Peasants you are!!!
k on 6:18pm today
Mr Jenkins wrote:
Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
What a joke! What expertise are you handing down? There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy. The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road. It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies. The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years. Commoners? i don't think so. really!!
More like you couldn't afford to live there after all, sound like you got your head stuck up your @ss.
We are in the forest. We were downsizing from a house in a much nicer part than Lyndhurst to be nearer the shops. The truth is, the struggle to travel to Lymington, though slightly further, is worth it, for not seeing the trash that has driving the REAL country lovers away from Lyndhurst.
The tide is changing for the sad labourites that think they'll trounce through beautiful parts of England. Very soon a real government will put paid to these pathetic plans.
Then when your children are old enough to leave the hovel, you will have to follow them back to a nest in the city, rather than they taking a right they ill deserve.
Commoners are one thing, peasants are another.
Commoner; a person who has a joint right in common land.
Peasant; An uncouth, crude, or ill-bred person; a boor
Posted by: Commoner, New Forest on 8:55am Sun 6 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Mr Jenkins[/bold] wrote:
[quote]k on 6:18pm today [quote][bold]Mr Jenkins[/bold] wrote: [quote]Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense. [/quote] What a joke! What expertise are you handing down? There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy. The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road. It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies. The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years. Commoners? i don't think so. really!![/quote] More like you couldn't afford to live there after all, sound like you got your head stuck up your @ss. [/quote] We are in the forest. We were downsizing from a house in a much nicer part than Lyndhurst to be nearer the shops. The truth is, the struggle to travel to Lymington, though slightly further, is worth it, for not seeing the trash that has driving the REAL country lovers away from Lyndhurst. The tide is changing for the sad labourites that think they'll trounce through beautiful parts of England. Very soon a real government will put paid to these pathetic plans. Then when your children are old enough to leave the hovel, you will have to follow them back to a nest in the city, rather than they taking a right they ill deserve. Commoners are one thing, peasants are another. Commoner; a person who has a joint right in common land. Peasant; An uncouth, crude, or ill-bred person; a boor Peasants you are!!![/quote] I can understand the cause for concern at the trash thrown down in the area, that is a common sight in towns and cities, where people seem to think that it is OK because the Council employ someone to sweep up.
The trash you see is not the fault of the commoner, who regards the New Forest as an extension of his garden, because that is where his cattle and horses roam.
No, it is the incomers, and the arrogant, obnoxious people who think that to take their litter home is beneath them.
I guess that you would fall into that category Mr Jenkins.
I was interested to read your definitions, and can identify with Commoner.
With your attitude toward your fellow man, I think that you measure up to being classed as a peasant.
It is generally accepted that people fall into three classes:-
Upper Class, Middle Class and Working Class.
I think that you have found a fourth - you have No Class.
Mr Jenkins wrote:
k on 6:18pm today
Mr Jenkins wrote:
Commoner, New Forest on 12:35pm today Most interested to read Andy's expert analysis, from his home in Locks Heath, the centre of the New Forest! The fact of the matter is, that children that have been born and brought up in the New Forest area have to move out, because they cannot afford to live there. Cottages that were once the homes of farm workers, have now been sold off as second homes to 'the haves' from London and elsewhere. I would be most interested to know the source of Andy's information, that the bogs in the New Forest were man-made. Perhaps he will enlighten us, and let us know during what period it was done. For Andy's information, many of the commoners have only enjoyed their commoners rights for a comparatively short period. The rights are not rights enjoyed by a family, to be passed from generation to generation, but rights that are attached to the property. So the property gets sold to some London 'big wig' and he suddenly becomes the guardian of the New Forest heritage! Andy also wants it to become more convenient for caravans! So where does the wildlife go that is displaced by these caravan parks? The wildlife is more part of the New Forest heritage than caravans, and causes considerably less inconvenience to one and all. By ensuring that there is affordable housing built in the area, I hope that those whose families have, in the past, been commoners, and known how to manage the New Forest, will be able to remain and pass on their expertise to the incomers who often have more money than sense.
What a joke! What expertise are you handing down? There should not be one piece of New forest land made available to council tenants. The fact these people are pushing for more housing for their children, proves their target and goals for them amount to renting a council house. This in itself proves they are not worthy. The truth is, the New Forest is an absolute gorgeous piece of the South. I recently thought of buying a house in Lyndhurst, until i saw the eyesore of an estate across the road. Beautiful idylic scenes, destroyed by a broken car on bricks and an old transit van on the opposite side of the road. It's outrageous, that the so called "commoners" think it's their right to have NON EXISTENT skills passed down to their little chavvies. The "council tenants" not "commoners", should be rehoused outside the forest, and re-inhabited with the elderly, to give them a quiet retirement, without the threat of the council yobs and off-spring, ruining their final years. Commoners? i don't think so. really!!
More like you couldn't afford to live there after all, sound like you got your head stuck up your @ss.
We are in the forest. We were downsizing from a house in a much nicer part than Lyndhurst to be nearer the shops. The truth is, the struggle to travel to Lymington, though slightly further, is worth it, for not seeing the trash that has driving the REAL country lovers away from Lyndhurst. The tide is changing for the sad labourites that think they'll trounce through beautiful parts of England. Very soon a real government will put paid to these pathetic plans. Then when your children are old enough to leave the hovel, you will have to follow them back to a nest in the city, rather than they taking a right they ill deserve. Commoners are one thing, peasants are another. Commoner; a person who has a joint right in common land. Peasant; An uncouth, crude, or ill-bred person; a boor Peasants you are!!!
I can understand the cause for concern at the trash thrown down in the area, that is a common sight in towns and cities, where people seem to think that it is OK because the Council employ someone to sweep up.
The trash you see is not the fault of the commoner, who regards the New Forest as an extension of his garden, because that is where his cattle and horses roam.
No, it is the incomers, and the arrogant, obnoxious people who think that to take their litter home is beneath them.
I guess that you would fall into that category Mr Jenkins.
I was interested to read your definitions, and can identify with Commoner.
With your attitude toward your fellow man, I think that you measure up to being classed as a peasant.
It is generally accepted that people fall into three classes:-
Upper Class, Middle Class and Working Class.
I think that you have found a fourth - you have No Class.
The trash of which i speak, are the said lowlife peasants, not the state of the streets.
There are commoners and peasants. Please don't for one moment put yourself in the mould of a commoner.
The real commoners are a forest need. Council trash that you obviously are, should be thrown out of this beautiful place, as you have nothing to offer.
All the council trash residents do, is take. Then your peasant children grow up and take more.
Look at tha local council residents of Lyndhursts' children. They turn up at Boltons Bench and the cricket house at weekends, get filthy drunk and leave their cans and bottles strewn over the fireld.
These are council trash children FACT, their parents had no control as children and know not, how to discipline their offspring trash now.
You are not worthy of countryside of such beauty.
As previously stated, housing for scum residents will not be an option when labour are thrown out. The landslide victory in waiting, will be one of the most significant in British history, and the streets that have been laced with scum for so many years will be taken back
The trash of which i speak, are the said lowlife peasants, not the state of the streets.
There are commoners and peasants. Please don't for one moment put yourself in the mould of a commoner.
The real commoners are a forest need. Council trash that you obviously are, should be thrown out of this beautiful place, as you have nothing to offer.
All the council trash residents do, is take. Then your peasant children grow up and take more.
Look at tha local council residents of Lyndhursts' children. They turn up at Boltons Bench and the cricket house at weekends, get filthy drunk and leave their cans and bottles strewn over the fireld.
These are council trash children FACT, their parents had no control as children and know not, how to discipline their offspring trash now.
You are not worthy of countryside of such beauty.
As previously stated, housing for scum residents will not be an option when labour are thrown out. The landslide victory in waiting, will be one of the most significant in British history, and the streets that have been laced with scum for so many years will be taken back
Posted by: C, barton on sea on 7:41pm Thu 10 Jul 08
Well having only lived here for some 6 years I can feel the wrath already. Before any body shouts towney my family background on both sides is farming. You should look at the status of the National Park, it is a quango. What does this mean well basicly - THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE UNITARY AUTHORITIES and more NOT DEMOCRATICALLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS. Even your counciullors are now prevented through the parks code of practice from making any impact as they cannot represent those who live in their wards. In other words you are ALL UP S__T CREAK WITHOUT A PADDLE, so much for democracy.
All of this is achieved at no cost to yourselves but at a cost to the TAX PAYER on average of £89,000 per person that are employed by quango's. A bit of history even the BANK OF ENGLAND is a quango set up in 1694. Single purpose quango's in effect de-politicise service delivery but unfortunately they are only accountable up. To make your points you should hammer the NFDC and regional planning bodies, in the main the PARK AUTHORITY will not alter its way forward. To argue amongst yourselves will not gain anything. The policy proposed will mean in effect no housing with in the boundary of the forest but more housing on the borders. But watch out you have yet to see any proposals for the new park head quarters, none of you have any rights to object? as its a quango. You should organise yourselves as a body to represent all sides in the forest, because before long, you will all have to get on your bikes to access the forest or walk. In numbers you can do something and demonstrate the you are of one, united you stand etc. Good luck.
Well having only lived here for some 6 years I can feel the wrath already. Before any body shouts towney my family background on both sides is farming. You should look at the status of the National Park, it is a quango. What does this mean well basicly - THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE UNITARY AUTHORITIES and more NOT DEMOCRATICALLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS. Even your counciullors are now prevented through the parks code of practice from making any impact as they cannot represent those who live in their wards. In other words you are ALL UP S__T CREAK WITHOUT A PADDLE, so much for democracy.
All of this is achieved at no cost to yourselves but at a cost to the TAX PAYER on average of £89,000 per person that are employed by quango's. A bit of history even the BANK OF ENGLAND is a quango set up in 1694. Single purpose quango's in effect de-politicise service delivery but unfortunately they are only accountable up. To make your points you should hammer the NFDC and regional planning bodies, in the main the PARK AUTHORITY will not alter its way forward. To argue amongst yourselves will not gain anything. The policy proposed will mean in effect no housing with in the boundary of the forest but more housing on the borders. But watch out you have yet to see any proposals for the new park head quarters, none of you have any rights to object? as its a quango. You should organise yourselves as a body to represent all sides in the forest, because before long, you will all have to get on your bikes to access the forest or walk. In numbers you can do something and demonstrate the you are of one, united you stand etc. Good luck.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
