Talk:CPRE

Untitled

Seems very PoV to me. Andy Mabbett 17:27, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) While I agree with the sentiment of this article, I too think it is a little PoV. Giano 20:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anti-urbanist?

Shouldn't that be anti-suburbanist? If people want to save the countryside, we need more urb (and less suburbs). If this organisation is too muddled to see the distinction, is there some why the issue can be put across in the article? Merchbow 08:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about tranquillity in our day to day life - not just when the animals escape from the zoo?

This is just a PoV - It seems to me that, by fighting hard to preserve the "tranquility" of the countryside, pushing for increased brownfield development, and for higher density housing within existing communities before "spreading" into the countryside, this organisation seeks to sweep all of the "unpleasant" reality of people's need to live in decent housing into cordoned areas, generally known globally as ghettoes, so that we end up spending most of our lives in these highly tense (or the antithesis of tranquil if somebody has a better word)zones, relieved only when we escape to their jealously guarded tranquil countryside. I would suggest that the human need is for greater tranquility throughout our normal day to day existence, not only when we're let out of the zoo. This would surely be best achieved by reducing the density in our communities, and thus increasing the tranquility within those communities. Of course, this is at the cost of spread of housing developments into existing protected tranquil areas so beloved of this organisation. Countryside does not necessarily become unpleasant just because residential housing is introduced - how else did the traditional English village come into existence? Providing development is tasteful and harmonious, it can enhance the attractiveness, and so provide areas to LIVE in tranquility, not just visit tranquility. If planning processes concentrated more on ensuring such good taste and harmony, rather than simply prohibiting, we may have a far more sustainable approach to future housing development, and to preservation of rural harmony. It's interesting to note that green belts were introduced to preserve towns, not to protect countryside. In the extreme, which current and future housing demand is pushing us toward, preservation of the towns is creation of the ghettoes, which entirely supports my view that the cost of a "tranquil" countryside is the transition from communities to ghettoes. Let's all of a share of that tranquility in our day to day lives please, stop this insane preservation of the myth that tranquility is only for weekends and holidays.

Economics over Environmentalism?

One big critism of CPRE is that the members generally are people of a certain age who have benefited greatly from the increase in cost of housing in the UK. The housing shortage has seen house prices treble within a decade, and some of the people who have benefited most from this increase, actively campaign against ensuring there is adequate housing stock to meet demand. In certain parts of the UK local CPRE groups boast of their vexatious litigation in slowing provision of housing, they know that they don't have a credible argument and that housing is needed but are able to exploit the planning applications in order to delay house building by several years. Is this worth a mention? I can find sources for the boasting by Oxfordshire CPRE for vexatious litigation and the demographics of CPRE own membership show that the majority of their members have profiteered from the housing shortage and have more to lose if the UK were to adopt a fair and non age discriminatory housing policy.

Answer: ECONOMICS DOES NOT COME INTO IT

I'm not in the above category, but I support the preservation of our countryside. There is limited space in the UK for housing and the enormous amount of infrastructure that has to go with it. Quarrying, roads, airports, sewers, landfill, schools, hospitals, manufacturing, motor vehicle congestion, reservoirs. This is not an island with an unlimited supply of land. We also might consider that space is required for green energy initiatives, to say nothing of the need to grow food.

The issue here is should the UK be made a place fit only for human habitation? And is increasing the population of the UK sustainable in the long term? The answer to that is no. At some point if the population continues to increase controls on human migration will have to be imposed. I think it extremely sad that few are willing to face up to this.

House building companies arguably profiteer from the demand in housing that results from open borders and an unwillingness by government to encourage people to have smaller families.

I am not a member of the CPRE. John2o2o2o (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing criticism of being concreted over

UK has the highest urban area as percentage of any large country: https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/atlas-urban-expansion/documents/table-urban-land-cover-data.xls

Criticism seems misguided - any point of view can be referenced, but that doesn't give it validity. Am therefore removing. Suggest at least a strong rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.247.95 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Campaign to Protect Rural England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928074232/http://www.cpre.org.uk/filegrab/living-landscapes.pdf?ref=2469 to http://www.cpre.org.uk/filegrab/living-landscapes.pdf?ref=2469
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cpre.org.uk/magazine/out-and-about/item/2503-members-guide-2011-featured-properties?qh=YToyOntpOjA7czo4OiJwcm9wZXJ0eSI7aToxO3M6MTA6InByb3BlcnRpZXMiO30%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402154955/http://www.cprenorthwest.org.uk/ to http://www.cprenorthwest.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Campaign against drink-container litter

"In 2018 after CPRE's successful 10-year campaign against drink-container litter, the Government announced the introduction of a deposit return scheme to increase recycling rates. As CPRE had demanded, the scheme is set to include all single use drink-containers, whether plastic, glass or metal." This is factually incorrect, so the campaign cannot be regarded as 'successful'. There is no deposit return scheme for *any* single use drink-containers, whether plastic, glass or metal.