?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

‘Battery’ dairy of 8,000 cows sparks protests

"The council said that any objections on animal welfare grounds could not be considered as valid reasons for refusing the application."


So, let me get this straight? Putting aside the specific issue of the overly intensive farming here, people aren't even allowed to question the ethics of this?

Our planning laws must be really perverted if they can stop wind turbines in there hundreds for all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons, but it has no power to stop ethically questionable industries.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
feanelwa
4th Mar, 2010 20:42 (UTC)
Maybe somebody who lives in a 19th Century cottage might be inconvenienced by mastitis-afflicted cows wailing in pain.
crowsty
4th Mar, 2010 20:56 (UTC)
Why should ethics come into a planning application? Do you want councillors really making decisions based on their beliefs of how ethical the use of space will be? That is a very dodgy path to go down. The views of councillors will differ, the system will be left open to the councillors being influenced by external factors, with them then justifying the reason for rejection with some loose ethical argument. The current legislation is such that if they did try to reject for such invalid reason, the applicant can appeal to higher authorities, and get it through anyway, costing the council money.

If it is considered wrong for animals to be kept in such conditions, then it is a matter for national government.
hmmm_tea
5th Mar, 2010 06:58 (UTC)
Do you want councillors really making decisions based on their beliefs

erm... is that not the basis upon which we elect them?

The issue of whether something should be built or not, is not an objective decision. We're doing the country a disservice by pretending that we can just ignore any issue that is not cut and dried.

The planning process is where the people get the opportunity to voice their opposition to these proposals, so is the natural place for these oppositions to make a difference.
feanelwa
5th Mar, 2010 12:25 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I have some agreement with you, but there doesn't seem to be any avenue whereby people can oppose it because it's morally wrong, having established that the government isn't going to do anything because somebody probably "made a donation" somewhere.
Dave Holland [org.uk]
5th Mar, 2010 01:46 (UTC)
Ethics is subjective. Planning law is (supposed to be) objective. Hope you can see why.
passage
7th Mar, 2010 09:16 (UTC)
Wrong law
Planning laws aren't the only laws out there.

If you have a problem with the planning of the building, it should be planning laws used to deal with it.

If you have a problem with the animal welfare of what the building will be put to, it should be the animal welfare laws used to deal with it.

You're quite right about wind turbines being blocked for the stupidest of reasons, but I think the response to that should be to stop blocking wind turbines for stupid reasons, not to start blocking everything else.

I am quite, quite confused at all the people who think ethics are subjective, but planning decisions are made by feeding the data into a computer running the one true planning algorithm.

Apparently murder is wrong is just a point of view (that of the victim for example), where as skyscrapers not fitting the aesthetic of neighbourhood is simple fact.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Me

Other Sites of Interest

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow