To hate Nimbys?

[AgaPanthers]

"A campaign group has started a petition calling on Guildford Borough Council to ditch a study which proposes building 800 new homes each year.

Guildford Greenbelt Guardians (GGG) claims the draft strategic housing market assessment (SHMA), which was prepared by consultants GL Hearn, is not fit for purpose"

I had a look at their website, which is here:

www.guildfordgreenbeltguardians.co.uk/contact/4581459303

The address in question is here:

maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=down+place,+hogs+back,+guildford&hl=en&ll=51.234918,-0.626478&spn=0.027892,0.052314&sll=51.241515,-0.565423&sspn=0.111121,0.209255&hq=down+place,+hogs+back,+guildford&t=h&z=15

accessed via this nice private road:

maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=down+place,+hogs+back,+guildford&hl=en&ll=51.228527,-0.618625&spn=0.006974,0.013078&sll=51.241515,-0.565423&sspn=0.111121,0.209255&hq=down+place,+hogs+back,+guildford&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.228527,-0.618625&panoid=TulwkXGRLLz76fMWXMOy1A&cbp=12,353.2,,0,0.66

As they say on their other website, savehogsback.co.uk (same address) this 'forms part of London's Green Belt'.

AIBU, or is it a but fucking hypocritical to complain about development on the green belt, when your own house is on the self-same sodding land?

If they lived in a flat in the middle of Guildford, and wanted to preserve the countryside for all, I would have a great deal more sympathy. But these people just want it all for themselves! 'No building on the green belt except for the buildings that we own.'

I would feel a bit sick if I signed up to this campaign and then realised it was just someone trying to preserve the value of their own house at the expense of hundreds of people needing homes.

[daisychain01]

"NIMBYs"

a label given to anyone who dares to question the decisions of faceless Government departments, challenge and highlight to citizens the appalling decisions made for reasons other than stated on the marketing blurb.

And it often makes no difference whatsoever.

HS2 is still going to happen despite the proven zilch benefits. I've moved away from the blighted area, I have nothing at stake in HS2 now, but I still fight it, because it's a travesty that should be scrapped and reconsidered in the light of new evidence.

Houses are built on flood plains to meet the short term career goals of politicians and councillors who just want to meet targets in their term of office.

[DidoTheDodo]

I live in a village and developers (and the "local" town council, which is 10 miles away) want to build 1000 houses, thus increasing the size of the village by 50%.

Infrastructure? (Schools (already full to bursting and nothing for over 11s), drainage (whole estate and main road floods with sewage in rainy weather), supermarket (10 miles away) traffic management (just the one road through the village) Nope, none of that.

It's not surprising people can see trouble ahead and might prefer sensible development, rather than idiotic plans that will affect everyone.

[SoupDreggon]

and where are your children going to live?

Well, they don't need to live in a naice house with a garden and two bathrooms built on green belt land.

[AlecTrevelyan006]

and where are your children going to live?

[Abraid2]

I don't give a damn about being called a Nimby and would do anything I can to stop my rural areaa bolt hole of many Londoners at weekends and Bank HOlidays for long walksbeing concreted over. Once the countryside has gone it has gone for good. Along with the wildlife and fresh air. My district is being urbanised and our population will more than double. Nobody was asked if we minded being turned into a suburb and we are just expected to put up and shut up. People are very upset about it and feel powerless. Every week another field is dug up and more houses pop up. Not affordable ones, either.

[straighttothepoint]

but whereas towns were once separated by green, they are slowly merging together so town x merges straight into town b, and the fight for schools, roads, doctors, sewage systems, parking and so on gets worse and worse.

[AlecTrevelyan006]

the country is NOT going to be concreted over. Not in my lifetime, nor that of my children of even my grandchildren.

There are around 25million homes in the UK and in total they only cover about 2% of the land. At the current rate of housebuilding the stock is increasing by about 0.4% per year. So, it's going take about 300 years to double the number of homes.

Three quarters of the homes that will exist in this country in 2115 have already been built.

[straighttothepoint]

HS2 = bollocks - most expensive bollocks I have ever seen

I would hate to have a Netto or Tesco where I live, happy with Waitress and M&S. Nice areas have the latter, says it all.

[RedToothBrush]

HS2 = bollocks.

It will save 30mins on a trip to Manchester. And will cost an extortionate amount for little gain and could be better spend. The House of Lords most recent comments about it back up that view.

NIMBYS = often hilarious

Google Lymm and Netto for comedy snobbishness. They approved a supermarket thinking they were getting a Waitrose or an M&S food and are getting a Netto. Cue outrage and petitions.

[ShebaRabbit]

Infill housing should come before greenfield. but big developers don't like this because they cant cram so many units in as cheaply as the land is much more expensive.
If you think any houses built on that land will be affordable for young people/families currently overcrowded in flats then you are deluded. I've only ever heard developers speak as if building on greenfield sites is some sort of public service. Never heard a planner say it. Urban sprawl and ribbon development are inefficient and environmentally dubious ways to house people.
Even if that proposed estate was built to be affordable housing (very unlikely given the premium that address will bring)unless you have a car you'll be left standing in the rain with your kids waiting on an unreliable bus that may or may not show up to get anywhere. You'll have to rely on the increasingly expensive corner shop as your car-owning neighbours whizz past you to the out of town supermarket.

[CFSKate]

Where is it going to end? Population grows, build more houses, so will population stop growing? I don't want to see this country concreted over.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

There are lots of houses going up near me on greenbelt land, the first site is well thought out, contains shops, a school, Doctors surgery etc.

The second and third sites are just thrown together, the town that they are linked to does not have the infrastructure to cope and it will cause no end of grief to those already there and those moving in to the area.

Also on top of this one of the local big companies has closed, and sold the site to a local college/university and it will become a new campus, all well and good but they sold the car park to a different builder for housing.

I am quite happy for buildings to be built but I wish that they would think all the issues through first

[Flingingmelon]

I wasn't a Nimby until I moved to an area where the local school only takes fifteen children a year.

If they build a new school / train station / doctors surgery / route to the main road etc to service all these new homes, I can stop being a nimby.

I don't really worry about property prices, they aren't building any grade 2 listed cottages any time soon.

[SoupDreggon]

the country needs more new homes

So build high density tower blocks on brownfield sites. Except no one wants to live there do they...?

[AlecTrevelyan006]

the country needs more new homes

most greenbelt is nothing like most people think it is

there is loads of space

[MythicalKings]

Before we moved here some of our neighbours clubbed together and bought the (greenbelt) fields at the back from the farmer to make sure they weren't ever sold for building land.

Nimbyism taken to the extreme. But, selfishly, I'm glad.

[ConferencePear]

YABU If we all really looked after our own backyard we would not be wrecking the countryside in the way we are.

[SoupDreggon]

Pretty sure the majority of my generation would rather have somewhere safe and warm to live, rather than some pretty green grass to look at while we freeze on the streets.

Yes, because the plant life is only to look at isn't it? It doesn't do anything else that benefits humanity.

[SoupDreggon]

AIBU, or is it a but fucking hypocritical to complain about development on the green belt, when your own house is on the self-same sodding land?

That depends on whether your house was built before or after the green belt policy was established.

There are literally millions of acres of green space all around there. Extending existing urban sprawl another mile doesn't change that picture at all.

And then you extend it another mile, it won't make any difference will it? Oh, might as well add on another mile, it won't make any difference will it? Just one more mile, it won't make an more difference will it? Hell, just build on the entire countryside, it won't make a difference will it?

People need houses, yes. However, there needs to be an acceptance that space is finite. The only house building that makes any sense is high density tower blocks but I don't think many people want to live in those.

[MoominKoalaAndMiniMoom]

Pretty sure the majority of my generation would rather have somewhere safe and warm to live, rather than some pretty green grass to look at while we freeze on the streets.

[straighttothepoint]

Yabu. They only build more houses. They don't build more schools, more doctors surgeries, more dentists, they don't build more road, widen the M25, update sewage systems.. It is not just about the fucking houses. so sometimes people need to be nimbys.

[Alexcan17]

guildfordgreenbeltgroup.co.uk

[Alexcan17]

A bit late I know but I was reading about Guildford Greenbelt Group and this thread popped up...
I live in Knaphill, near Guildford and along the A322 corridor which is highly congested already, and developers are building nearly 300 houses on the land behind where I live. I'm pretty sure it's what is mentioned in a post on here.
It has access problems, you can queue for hours along the road it is so congested in peak times already, without potentially 600 more cars adding to it. Schools are totally full already, so they included building a school on the site, this got the plans through, they've since decided not to build the school...
These new 'affordable' houses are squashed in close, as many as poss on the site to maximise profit. phase 1 are being sold, 3 bedrooms over £400k so really very unaffordable, and such bad value for money my little house which even though will now be on a housing estate and on the main access road feeding this estate, with no fields behind, has risen in value massively just because these houses have been built and are so unaffordable!
and yes I opposed the development, yes part of it was because I didn't want it on my doorstep, my kids can't play outside my house at the front or walk to the playground as the traffic already goes too fast along our road, but more because of the massive traffic problems they already have, and full up schools and doctors surgeries in the area...I'm selfishly hoping I can get my son into the nearby school next year before most of these houses are built and sold otherwise I'll be having to get in my car and add to the congestion on the terrible A322!
I completely get why people wouldn't want the massive numbers of houses built here, somekne has to preserve the few green spaces left they,l never knock the houses down and make it into green space again!

[Pipbin]

One thing I do know is that Guildford is heaving full of gits. I lived there for a while and it is full of them.

However, that aside, we do need more housing, but the houses that are being built aren't affordable. New houses are expensive and small. Sadly I expect that your friend on a low wage will be no more likely to afford one of these new houses that she is anything now.

Also, land that is green isn't 'empty' it is quite often farmland. The countyside isn't like a big park.

In conclusion they shouldn't build more of Guildford and its full of gits.