Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Where am I?



Clue: View from public footpath

And another clue.
Posted by at

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Back of Wilkswood Farm?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=swanage&sll=52.63457,-1.129443&sspn=0.299206,0.514297&ie=UTF8&ll=50.614149,-2.00686&spn=0.000611,0.001004&t=h&z=20&iwloc=A

1/9/09 2:22 pm
The Postman said...

nope ...

1/9/09 2:32 pm
Anonymous said...

As you go past the BP garage on the A351 heading towards Swanage, is it in the field on the left just before Napps bridge.

1/9/09 5:18 pm
The Postman said...

Here's a clue.

On a footpath in a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

On the Jurassic Coast.

In a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

1/9/09 5:40 pm
Anonymous said...

Oh, well, just have to be pedantic!

The Unesco site is the cliffs, not the wet bit at the bottom or the green bit at the top, just the cliffs.

So please, could we have a better clue, or a wider angle to the photo, or the energy to go out and walk around a lot, please!

1/9/09 6:46 pm
Anonymous said...

Is it near the tip, council stuff.

1/9/09 11:10 pm
Anonymous said...

Council tip.

2/9/09 12:08 am
Anonymous said...

Looks like a normal working farm to me. What is the problem? Someone with an unhealthy tidiness fetish must have posted this. If people want to leave things lying around on their property that is up to them.

2/9/09 10:17 am
Anonymous said...

Herston Yard? They seem to be free from the burden of any legislation.

2/9/09 10:31 am
Anonymous said...

One less affordable house to find, who's moving in before me??

2/9/09 12:06 pm
Anonymous said...

Quarr Farm.

2/9/09 2:43 pm
The Postman said...

Bingo! (Pretty, isn't it?)

2/9/09 4:17 pm
Anonymous said...

It's another planning discussion isn't it?

The Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 was formulated when we desperately needed to feed ourselves, and Farmers were exempted from, or given some leeway, over certain issues. Please don't ask which, cuz I don't know.

I've no details, but from heresay, Quarr Farm and PDC have had a few discussions over the years. So far as I'm aware Quarr Farm has never been found to be breaking any Planning laws.

2/9/09 5:10 pm
Anonymous said...

If who ever owns it doesn't want to use it, why not let it out as allotments?

2/9/09 10:42 pm
Anonymous said...

Please leave them alone, they are all happy keeping themselves to themselves.

Moving on - Next photo?

2/9/09 11:14 pm
Anonymous said...

Easy - Swaanage Bay View Holiday Park's new 'central' rubbish tip.

3/9/09 4:05 am
Anonymous said...

" ...they are all happy keeping themselves to themselves. "

Er, no.
They (as all farmers)are custodians of the countryside and enjoy benefits and subsidies from government. They have a responsibility to take care of the countryside that ultimately belongs to all of us. Of course they get do lots of things out of our sight, but surely where a public footpath passes through the land they should take a bit more care?

3/9/09 9:30 am
Anonymous said...

"tidiness fetish" I wish someone could explain that to my other half!

3/9/09 10:25 am
Anonymous said...

The aesthetic of decay is strange. Crumbling stonework seems to be OK but not dilapidated vans. Then there is the challenge of randomness. If these object were arranged in parallel rows would they be acceptable for example? Too much of our countryside has an appearance of prussian uniformity and sterility. It is not a park. The occupant of this land will pass it to future generations in rather better condition than if they had doused it agrochemicals.

3/9/09 10:33 am
Anonymous said...

" ...they are all happy keeping themselves to themselves. "
"The occupant of this land will pass it to future generations in rather better condition than if they had doused it agrochemicals."

whaaaattt!!!!???? I suggest that the author(s)of these comments would probably be happier living in Romania - or closer to home, try the tip in Wareham. What ridiculous comments. Farmers are over-privileged in so many respects, and as another commentator says, they are paid custodians of the countryside - and delight in telling us this whenever possible, so I agree that they should behave likewise.

4/9/09 2:34 pm
lifeboatjohn said...

Surely this is a good example of low impact living? It may not represent a stereotypical image of how the English countryside should look, however, it certainly does represent things being stored for re-use at a later date, perhaps in the process of being recycled and maybe even having the effect of reducing the amount of other goods which need to be bought.

We should be encouraging this sort of thing not naming and shaming honest and hardworking folk for doing what we should all be doing more off.

21/9/09 7:34 pm
Anonymous said...

* land: must be used productively; organic; 20 trees planted per acre

* buildings: controls on size, height and appearance; local / natural materials; no cement

* electricity: off-grid - wind & solar

* heating: wood stoves, solar hot water, passive solar / thermal mass design, ground source heat pumps

* water: rainwater harvesting, springs

* sewage: compost toilets, reed beds, ponds, waste water for irrigation

* plus other conditions on waste, vehicles, and occupation of dwellings

To me, that's low impact living. Only being able to judge the two photo's makes me wonder how many of the above are met.

Perhaps you know better.

21/9/09 8:02 pm
lifeboatjohn said...

Anonymous

What a curiously narrow definition of low impact you seem to have happened upon.

By saving valuable excess materials (gates and polypipe clearly visible in the photos) for use at a later date, environmental impact is lessened.

By re-using old containers or van backs for storage rather than building new (yes even straw bales or rammed earth), environmental impact is lessened.

Could go on but won't...

The point is, these people are re-cycling, re-using and therefor reducing what they consume in their business. I agree, it could look prettier but, but I applaud the fact that they are not destroying our planet.

By the way...why does everyone around here post anonymously or hide their identities in other ways?

Stand by your convictions...

21/9/09 8:49 pm
Anonymous said...

The curiously narrow definition was lifted from www.lowimpact.org it details items to be considered when planning a new build.

They have a much longer definition as well. I considered that it was too long to post, but please do feel free to go and read it, and then consider how many of their ideas are met up at Quarr?

It is not "a good example of low impact living"?

It is an example of LIL, but not a good one. Your comments about the re-use of existing resources is obvious, I could go on, but won't .......

"Why do people post anonymously or hide their identities in other ways"

weeeelllll, lifeboatjohn, you sure as hell aint on the elctoral roll.

Yours

Herbert John Strumperwell-Carruthers the third.

24/9/09 6:14 pm
lifeboatjohn said...

I wasn't aware that this was a building site.

Perhaps lifeboatjohn is not on the electoral roll, but you are only one click away from knowing who I am...

Kind regards.

John

24/9/09 7:58 pm
Anonymous said...

It's possible that you have a curiously narrow definition of what a building site is, mind you I might have an unfeasibly wide one.

As I follow your lifeboatscrapbook I thought it was you, but you might have been hijacked by aliens; it happens all the time in Swanage!

So, did "you consider how many of their ideas are met up at Quarr"?

Yours

Herbert John Strumperwell-Carruthers the third.

25/9/09 7:40 am

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)