To feel really upset about the lack of scrutiny on new housing development in the countryside

I know! That is the exact point I made much earlier!

I said that Labour are in for a big shock because local NIMBYs are not what is holding up housebuilding. In reality they have no real power, and this situation illustrates that perfectly.

However, this does not mean that your method will work, because it won't. If you follow proper procedure, then they can and will consider your points and you may effect change, and we have been successful at this several times in the past.

People like you are what gives grist to the developers' mill when they complain about Nimbys, people who don't understand the system and don't want homes built near them.

Sorry but your way of doing things for the last 10 years hasn't worked has it?
What exactly have you achieved? nothing, the current way of dealing with housing in the area has been a complete and utter failure, which you defend!

I couldn't care less about realpolitik... or SWW for that matter, tell that to the residents who put up with 100s of tanker movements per month or the amount of shit pumped into the Tamar because the 'plant cannot cope with existing flows, let alone new developments.

At Persimmon would have finished it by now and the eyesore that is the site would be over.

I asked her Geldred what was her plans/views for local housing and upgrading the sewage plant were.... thats all, no mention of Bridge View, if she cannot be bothered to answer, then she can go the same way as the useless Murray.

Our views on what the PC and the local councillor should do are very different.

I'm sorry you think I'm having a go at you but I am, I admit, getting a bit frustrated at your complete and utter refusal to face up to realpolitik.

I will try one last time, the PC and CCC could not refuse that application.You say yourself there is a desperate need for new low cost housing in the village, the land was a brownfield site that had been earmarked for building and someone - who wasn't Persimmon, but a small local developer - came along and said he could do it.

That's a slam dunk, it doesn't matter how sceptical they were as a committee or as individuals, they have to give it their backing. I'm sure they were hoping the small local guy would do a better job and wouldn't fuck it up like he has. Would you have preferred Persimmon to come in and steamroller their way through the project? Sure, you'd probably have finished houses there by now, but I very much doubt they would be low cost housing full of happy local young families,

To fight these things successfully you cannot get so emotional about it, you have to fight them on their own terms. There's no point saying things like 'we all know the sewage system can't cope'. SWW say it can (see below) and that's that.

Anna is very young, mint green but if you give her cast iron information that she can use she might be able to do something useful with it. Flapping around saying the statutory consultees are wrong and the PC are benefitting from it will just get you put on the NIMBY/loony pile. Sorry, but I've been doing this for over 10 years and that's how it is.

In many touristy areas, housing issues would be solved overnight if 2nd home airbnb was banned.

As i said, 86 airbnb's in my village, most are whole houses/flats, a few shepherd huts or annex's/single rooms.... the latter is fine, what isn't fine is LLs evicting tenants and then selling to airbnb owners or converting to hols lets themselves.

People wanting a cheaper holiday, shouldn't trump peoples ability to live and work in their home area, even when its locals themselves doing the airbnb ing.

Labour have only been in for 2 weeks, its bit early to be judging them on this matter... especially as the Tories had 14 years to do something about this and did nothing.

Funny though how Labour have made not the slightest mention of doing anything about BTL and second/holiday homes, which are a huge problem and IMO should not be allowed. These are nothing to do with need. One would think Labour should be against the wealthy owning more than one home .... it's almost as if many of them had their own snouts in that trough, funny that.

And it will be the same when they let the prisoners out early They will be into a halfway house or hostel then a social housing estate. They wont be living near the MPs or councillors or the middle class do gooders

Well that's the way to ensure these developments won't be near you at least, is to live next to a Councillor or (Labour) MP. Always been the way and not going to change now.

As my elderly uncle often says, it doesn’t matter who we vote for, we always end up with the government 😖

Yes, i voted for her, as she was the one most likely to oust the awful Tory, who voted consistently against the areas interests.

TBH she was very good when she came to the village to speak, seemed to genuinely care, so i don't hold a lack of experience against her.

Sure, v few MPs will ever vote against their party but i do hope she stays true to her word on the environment and housing

I don’t live anywhere near Cornwall. But out of interest I looked up Anna Gelderd just to see what a newly minted 2024 Labour MP might be like.

She has no record outside of experience of politics, charities or pressure groups.

I strongly suspect that (a) she will be utterly useless at representing local interests that go against party policy and (b) there are lots of Labour MPs like her.

@TonTonMacoute Ranting? i'm stating facts, this is how MN works......

i know of 2 PC who have BTL's, i never said they were profiteering either, i don't know what rents they charge or if they have airbnb's but their opinions on the huge growth in the sector has been deafening, in contrast to their support of self builds for the wealthy.

Gelderd never came back to me, both before her win over the useless Murray and afterwards.... but i appreciate she has only just started.

I specifically asked her about housing and sewage.

The fact remains is that both the PC and local CC supported Bridge View, they shouldn't have, regardless of the planning decision outcome & its completely blown up in their faces, or rather the people who live close by (luckily not me)
A more recent PC member is aghast that the PC supported the original development, on grounds of affordability, location and sewage.

Its very obvious, given the costs to develop a former green house complex, in the centre of the village was going to be super high, believing that 15 affordables would be built (out of 34) was naive, they then went onto to support the reduction to 10.

Not entirely sure why you re now having a go at me ?

@Alexandra2001

Everything you say is right but you're still just not getting the message that treating the council as your enemy in league with developers, and ranting about lack of infrastructure isn't going to get you anywhere. Councils are bound by the NPPF, which has a presumption in favour of development. They have no choice.

I'm not sure your comments on the profiteering of members of the PC is very helpful either. I don't know all of them but none of the members I know have a healthy BTL portfolio.

The rules must be changed at the top, but the government want to relax them. We have a shiny new MP from the governing party, I have already contacted her about this and I recommend you do too.

Near where I live, the council approved new housing, apartments, a hotel in one place. But again a ridiculously low amount of parking. Not even close to no of houses proposed, let alone hotel guests, apartment owners etc. so doesn't account for most households having two cars . The council in their wisdom think that everyone can use the P&R to get about (great if you just want to go to the city centre) or use a bike. So all these extra vehicles that people need to get to all the other places they want to get to, will cause chaos in the surrounding communities. Whilst next to city, all other surrounding areas have no public transport etc. not to mention the prices are ridiculous,

We are already one of the most nature depleted countries in Europe and this will only get worse as more and more houses are thrown up. My lovely small fishing town hometown is now being swamped with huge high rise blocks of extortionate flats. No infrastructure to support this so nobody can see a GP or get a school place and the roads are one giant car park. 500 flats with 100 odd parking spaces, it's insane. As pp have said there's housing enough and it's things like Airbnb and second homes that need looking at

20-30 houses 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 nope. They’ll be thrown up in there hundreds and thousands. There will be nothing left eventually.

I wonder how they plan to tackle the shortage of dentists, GP’s and NHS waiting lists and at some point the shortage of food.

Lol! Maybe read what has been written?

I do... and councils do not take into account of any infrastructure requirements, if they did, nothing at all would be built, do you think a developer can conjure up new GPs? Teachers? force SWW to build a new sewage plant when there is no additional land to build it on???? or that councils that have no money to fix pot holed roads, can now build new ones...... or that developers will honour their promises?

CL is tiny in terms of infrastructure, it simply gets swallowed up in other council spend.

Tavistock? 100s of homes built on the promise of a new/re opened rail line.... houses built, money for the rail line no longer available.

In areas such as Cornwall, many of the houses built end up as AirBnB's, do you not understand that if 86 properties are short term lets, then at least an additional 86 houses have to built, just to stand still, let alone provide for the homes for teachers carers healthcare staff needed for an aging population?

If the infrastructure isn't being improved ask your council why. Councils charge a community levy on all new developments- it's A LOT of money.

Councils are getting the money and/or developers have contractual obligations. They simply need to spend the money where it's supposed to be spent.

but what are you actually doing about it? Whining on facebook or attending meetings? finding out what the actual plans are? canvassing your local MPs and councillors to improve the infrastructure at the same time?

get involved then. Go to the council meetings, read up all the pros and cons and what people have said before, go into detail on why and wherefore etc etc
and encourage others to do the same.

But. We need housing so nimbyism is unwanted. What you DO need to do is make the council and whoever is responsible show the planning, and confirm budgets for appropriately improved roads, public transport, GP surgeries, school places etc etc.

Airbnb can be licensed, yes enforcement is an issue but charges for for a holiday licence will raise the funds for enforcement, then there is a tourist tax, used pretty much uniformly across mainland europe.

Yes i know SWW concerns are not binding but that needs to be changed so it is.

PC shouldn't have backed the development, regardless of how much influence the PC have, they are supposed to represent the interests of the Parish/Village, not those of the developer, esp as they know full well the additional sewage will be tankered out of the village dozens of tanker movements each day.

We've had close to 2000 new homes built with more on the way, but absolutely no infrastructure.

We still have old Victorian sewers, crumbling gas pipes, no drainage upgrades, no extra water. Never mind phone, cable, internet being added. No road up grades, doctors, schools, hospitals places, nothing.

It took 1 hour and 45 mins to travel 1 mile tonight.

Still at least the council will get their 5k per new house build, plus all the council tax for doing absolutely nothing.

There are plenty of empty buildings already, brown field sites, waste land doing nothing, but no they want green fields.

I don't disagree, I've been working in the area of planning for the last 10+ years, although more in Devon although I live in Cornwall.

The statutory consultees (in this case SWW) are sent planning applications and they simply reply that they have no objections to the application. It doesn't matter if it's complete bollocks, that what they say, and if they say that the planning committee cannot use that as a reason for refusal.

I have sat in planning meetings where the committee have wanted to refuse an application and the council lawyer has said 'If you refuse this, the applicant will appeal, and we cannot afford to deal with an appeal we will almost definitely lose'.

If a site has had more than one application (I'm not sure if this is the case with Bridge View) then it gets even worse as there has to be a planning inquiry which can cost millions. In this case a council may well decide to just not contest the appeal and permission will be granted.

I get so furious when I keep reading that NIMBY councils and NIMBYs who live locally are stopping new homes being built because it's virtually impossible with the system we have.

The PC only have an advisory role, they can approve or oppose an application, and their view will be taken into account, but it's not binding on the council planning committee. Calstock PC have not always had good experience with CCC, especially since it because a unitary authority. CCC do not come out at all well from this.

I agree Airbnb is a massive problem, there was talk of limiting it in some areas. It's so problematic now I think they have to something about it, but it is still an important source of tourist revenue, I don't think we can afford to stop it completely. And who will police it? Councils are already chronically short of money and Airbnb aren't going to, they don't give a damn.

Why not ban Airbnb and the like? It has taken so many properties out of circulation for long term rent or to buy to live in. In London its really pushed up prices and most are owned by people who already own one property (boomers and the rich).

@TonTonMacoute Planning also needs to take on infrastructure issues, the local sewage plant hasn't been upgraded for decades, yet the parish has 100s more houses.

Our village, unbelievably, has 86 airbnb's, a few years ago, it had 2 B&Bs.... they can build all they like but until this addressed, nothing will change.

BridgeView was supported by the parish council and local labour councillor, despite its obvious flaws.

Cannot see a HA taking over Bridge View, there are still 1000s of tones of excavation still to be done & imho the c/council inc the PC fucked this up, by believing the promise of 15 affordables within a luxury development, he was never going to build these, we all knew this at the time, as many objections stated.

I think it was quite a big HA, and friend was optimistic, but it was a few weeks ago now that I last heard any news and it may well have come to nothing.

Frankly, this is exactly the sort of mess that happens when governments make it virtually impossible for councils to refuse any application for new housing, and the so-called Nimbys (ie locals who point out what the problems might be)
aren't listened to.

If a developer promises to do all this stuff councils have no grounds to refuse, even if they know it's going to go badly wrong.