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

It is the unscrupulous private developers that are the problem. Clearly building is focused on maximising profit. There is a lot of building going on near me, both on good ag land and on old single dwelling sites. It is surprising that the majority of the new homes are large/ detached /4 or 5 bedroom units. The prices would be difficult for ordinary families to afford but someone is obviously buying them. The gardens are tiny and overlooked on multiple sides. As many houses packed in as possible and right beside the dual carriageway.I really don't envy the buyers.

We really need smaller homes including flats. More people live alone now. There should also be stipulations for more trees/communal green space. Shops and local services should be incorporated as old social housing used to have. Maybe even make rooftop solar panels a requirement?

No but eventually that is what happens Got one living underneath me right now.

The problem with Labour's approach is that it's not original; it's keeping with the current trend of big investors buying green land to build poor quality housing estates that look the same wherevever you go. Why don't they:

• develop brown fields
• turn empty retail and office dpaces into housing
• build up
• explain how adequate infrastructure will be put in place to support the new houses?

That's not how it works is it?
Offenders generally 'go home', go to a hostel or find someone to shack up with quickly. No-one is allocating offenders homes on a rota basis.

I'd love to see more self-build social housing opportunities personally. When you think how much it actually costs to build a basic structure - timber framed/shipping container homes, surely there is an answer there somewhere for those ready to move on from existing social housing.

What you are describing seems almost corrupt, or I wish it was.

As for housing, I think some development could be avoided in places such as the OP describes if second homes were restricted greatly and short term lets banned in some areas.

We left a village that had already joined up with several other nearby villages, due to the amount of new housing going up in the South. The reason we left was that the place was getting just too busy, we couldn't get a doctors appointment for a month, the schools were over subscribed, and it took over an hour to get to our nearest town, only 3 miles away, because of the traffic.

We've come back to live in an area about 40 miles away, and go back to our old area to visit friends there. Since we left, there has been at least 4,000 more new houses built in the area, but there is still no sign of any new doctors surgeries, schools, pharmacies, or anything to support all this growth.

In my opinion, it's time that builders were made to stick to the promises they make when persuading Councils to allow planning permission. I used to think, (naively it seems), that this country had relatively little corruption, compared to places like Spain, but since the Tory government started to show it's true colours, it's become clear just how much of it goes on, so it seems likely to me that it's the Councillors who are responsible for a lot of the problems, as I think it's highly likely that some of them are more than happy to accept a bung, in order to turn a blind eye to these failures to complete infrastructure that has been promised. Of course, I could be wrong, but with all the sleaze we've seen in Government over recent years, it does make you wonder, so I think maybe we all need to take some responsibility, get involved in what's going on locally, attend Council meetings, and hold them to account when they don't do the things we expect of them. The trouble is though, that everyone claims to be too busy to get involved, but then moans when new developments are pushed through, and the first they know of it, is when it's a done deal, or they see the developers moving in with their diggers. Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now.

No. Not nimby, Because I oppose it everywhere.
When councils don't do their job properly, bribes sometimes, planning depts. rogue builders. The more you read the more you find out how unscrupulous it all is. Throughout. Often corrupt. Often incompetent.

If you think it's not, you are naieve.

And no. None of these have ever been close to me. None directly affected me. But 3 friends and my mum yes, so I read into it in great detail, and my bil and brothers are ex builders so I have read about it from all sides.

we need to build more houses and some of them will have to be where people would rather they weren’t. If there was more supply then the prices should come down. Many of the problems on mn , cost of living crisis, cost of childcare , not enough bedrooms for children and stepchildren, adult children not able to move out are at root caused by the cost of housing which is caused by limited supply . Government needs to also make every effort to get empty houses occupied, and brownfield sites developed and build social housing but it won’t be enough. I also don’t understand why people are so anti developers as businesses, most people accept that supermarkets are businesses and don’t support communism .

Housing is desperately needed but unless substantial amounts of it are earmarked as affordable housing there will still be an issue with people being able to afford to buy. Unless house prices fall substantially people who can't afford to buy won't suddenly be able to just because there are more houses.

There also needs to be social housing included in any development. It's no good easing planning restrictions if people are excluded from buying or renting the new houses.

I don't know if the intention is to include restrictions and obligations, such as local connection or providing a certain percentage of social housing but if not then this building is going to make no difference to the underlying problems about finding housing in this country.

So you are a nimby then?

I completely disagree with @cookiebee. Most people on our town Facebook group are very concerned about new housing being built, eg 250 homes on a 125 plot, and more so that lack of infrastructure - gp's, schools etc. nearly everyone is in agreement, we can't all be 'nimby's'!

Completely agree! And it's not just 10s, 20s or even a few hundred that have been proposed in recent years, but often developments of thousands! We've had hundreds and hundreds go up around here and schools, gp surgery's, dentists and chemists are all creaking at the seams. And the inpact on our groundwater/flood plains and general water quality doesn't bear thinking about. I really hope labour comes up with something sensible, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

We need a huge number of houses built - too many people in temporary accommodation, can't afford to buy due to shortage of properties ( which pushes up prices), in substandard, damp housing or just experiencing a lack of choice in the areas they want to buy.
I'm looking forward to the new Labour government accelerating the house building programme to solve these problems.
I'm fed up of NIMBYs who can't see beyond their own good fortune
It's so hard for young people now

Our town has had around 2000 homes built in the last 5 years. In that time we haven't had any extra schools, doctors or dentists and the town is absolutely heaving. The local schools are getting calls most days asking about places but there aren't any. No one can get a dentist appointment and we only have one hospital serving a 40 mile radius. The most shocking thing is that only around half of these shoddy shoe boxes are lived in full time. About a quarter are holiday homes and another quarter are sitting there empty because they are so bloody expensive for what they are!

Exactly. They decided to vote Lib Dem to stop the Tory government building near them and have ended up with a Labour government who couldn't care less about them.

Serves them right.

I understand the need for more housing but previous posts make valid points: shoving a load of houses in with no increase in infrastructure is rife around here. 400 new houses going up on agricultural land with no bus service, a very small village school that can’t fit any more kids, a tiny drs surgery, no dentist within 20 miles, no NHS dentist within 40 miles, nearest town minimum 15 miles away…all of that…but what gets my goat and boils my piss more than anything is that of all these houses there will be maybe 40 “affordable” boxes and the others have NO restrictions : no local occupancy rules, no holiday let restrictions, no second-home restrictions. So in essence they’re really building money making schemes for the fat cats and greedy landlords. Arrrrrrggggggghhhhh. Fuck it all. Will get off my soapbox. As you were.

Like I said - we have declining primary school rolls and tiny villages with mainline rail stations where the older population in the village has fought tooth and nail against any development.

We have large new towns being built in our county far away from where the demand is, as that’s the only place where NIMBYs won’t add 5 years to any development.

Infrastructure is easily sorted by mandating developers to have fulfilled their S106 obligations before 50% of units sold.

One huge issue I find with NIMBYS is it comes from a very selfish place at times, one where essentially they don’t want to share their toys. They generally are quite a small percentage of the population, lucky enough to enjoy living in beauty spots. They usually want to raise the draw bridge and not let anyone else in on their area that they seem to think they own. I grew up on a council estate in London, no one cared how we lived or what was developed, I’m lucky enough through the randomness of life to have lived in two beautiful places where everyone is up in arms about new development, where you start out in life is a lottery, where you end up can be as well, but aside from the need for new housing, also let people in on the views and surroundings that some get to enjoy if they are able, and just share.

I agree, I think we need to preserve farm land and look at empty areas already built on - empty retail parks, empty areas in town centres - before we destroy farmland. Both building where there is already infrastructure and bringing life back to areas - people living in a town centre can bring it back to life.

And yes 20-30 properties on villages but that is not attractive to developers.

The houses have to be built somewhere though. Not everyone can live in a large town or city. There isn't that much countryside in this country anyway, most of the land is for farming. The government needs to promote housebuilding and protect countryside. The sites they're planning to allow new houses on are mainly brownfield sites that have previously been used for something, but are now left unused.

From what I've read, the new government is proposing that large development plans will be taken out of local council control and decided by a higher up national planning authority. Thus avoiding such potential NIMBYism...

And yet when the prisoners are let out early no doubt those of us on social housing estates will be told that we will have to take our share.

Most "nimbys" are concerned about the infrastructure. It's all very well
Building 400 new homes but that's potentially 500 children who need school
Places. 2000 people who need a doctor/dentist. 1000 extra cars on the roads

There is more to the story than the actual houses.