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.

[Filimou]

From what I can see, they are not objecting to a planning application for 800 houses but a strategic document which sets out that 800 new houses will be needed in that borough over their plan period (15 years usually), and that a lot of them will be put on that land.
So, consider this, we have an ever increasing population we need to provide for, those people that are complaining, did their houses just grow out of the ground? No, didnt think so. This study would be the result of extensive research and evidence gathering, as well as assessing need based on delivery/population. Not just some man with a highlighter drawing lines around land.

Not all brownfield sites are suitable for development as build costs make them unviable, they may still come forward as windfall development, but you cant really strategically allocate a lot of them.

As long as the developers make the relevant contributions to the Local Authority for education (to help with school extensions/new schools) and other needed infrastructure, and the houses are of an acceptable mix/density and layout, I dont see the problem.

So, to answer your OP, no i dont think YABU.

[akachan]

YANBU but I do worry what that will do to the already chaotic traffic situation in Guildford. Some Fridays there is total gridlock on the one way system.

[cricketpitch]

evertonmint was right to say that often developers have no interest at all in the area - they want to build, cash in and get out. If there are no school places, less green space, more pollution, or no more small businesses as workplaces are sold for housing - why on earth would they care. The people who live there care.

As soon as you get places where people do not care about the place they live in you get - at worst- vandalism, litter and no-go areas; at best an ugly soulessness where community has broken down.

[AgaPanthers]

There is no functionally less green space under this proposal. If you look at Guildford on Google maps, you can see that the land to its south is basically almost completely empty. 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.

[Takingbackmonday]

I disagree, but then I'm from nearby Guildford where proposed mass house building is going to close the strategic gap between mine and another town, damaging how gorgeous the area is and house prices

[TheXxed]

taking back Monday why do you need a gap between the two towns?

Surely young people having access to affordable good qaulity homes and areas being better connected is a good thing.

[Takingbackmonday]

Because there are two sides to each story. There is no way I can explain without being offensive but essentially the other town is seen as pretty awful, not to mention issues such as over subscribed primary schools, ridiculous traffic already. I know that won't be a popular answer but it is why people are against it. Towns in question are Farnham & Aldershot btw; I've recently moved up to London so won't actually be affected, but those are the reasons I'm hearing... apologies if any offence caused - 'tis the general feeling back home among quite a lot of people.

[Takingbackmonday]

rightly or wrongly

[AgaPanthers]

The flooding is not on the North Downs! It's, surprise, along the banks of the country's most famous river, the Thames.

And schools are being and have been built. It's no use throwing up your hands in the air and pretending that schools and doctors can't be catered for so we should just let these people squash in wherever they can find.

[Filimou]

Exactly aga Developers are made to pay the Local Authority (education and public health among others), before their decision is issued monies towards supplying supporting infrastructure. Our LA has recently built a new school to help cater for growth in the area.
Housing development on a large scale does not stand alone, everything is considered when making a decision whether or not a site is viable/sustainable.
(can you tell I work in strategic planning )

[evertonmint]

But as I understand it that money goes to a central pot and there is no requirement to invest it in the affected area.

So our county council doesn't have to provide extra school places in the village where they're allowing this development. They might use it to build a new school elsewhere.

The last estate built in our village required an allowance for a new health centre. They built a massive facility in the next village - great for their residents - and didn't put any new facilities in ours so we have an even more overcrowded surgery.

[daisychain01]

Everything Agapanthers said. I hate the culture of closing doors behind you. I managed to get a foot on the property ladder with a nice home, great space and garden but you need to lower your expectations have no garden and live in a box I think there's a twist of irony in this comment ...

I think we should just get rid of planning reg's, concrete over the UK, and be done with it. Let's face it, once HS2 has been built, it will be a noisy scarred landscape anyway, and our grandchildren will be left to pick up the tab for the cockup project

[Filimou]

evertonmint It is a bit of a tricky one, I am not sure if all LA's operate in the same way, but for instance, where I live, they pay the money to education for instance, and there are policies/agreements in place to make sure that money can only get spent within that service and how it can get spent.
There is a new way of calculating these monies/managing these payments call a CIL charging schedule, which I know a lot of authorities are looking into at the moment, which means at least every authority will be doing the same thing (if they adopt it).

[evertonmint]

Yes, our council does ring fence it to schools/libraries/health/leisure as appropriate but they have no requirement to ring fence it for such facilities in the community in which the new development is and where they've derived the money from. Not so much of a problem in a town where you can maybe combine the needs and money from developments in two neighbouring suburbs, but useless in rural areas like ours where the extra school/doctor places are needed in 3 different locations separated by several miles so they don't/can't/won't provide the facilities where they've allowed the new development. So it's no wonder we don't want new developments when they just overcrowd facilities already being very strained, and with the knowledge that the council is focusing its extra budget for school and leisure facilities in other towns several miles away so the new estates provide only downsides for the community as a whole.

That's why our council wants to put all the required new housing development in one place where they can concentrate these new facilities but the delays in the district plan mean inappropriate developments like the one our village faces will likely get through the process as we are in a planning void.

[AgaPanthers]

"Let's face it, once HS2 has been built, it will be a noisy scarred landscape anyway, and our grandchildren will be left to pick up the tab for the cockup projec"

Ridiculous statement. The UK is massive, HS2 will cover about 0.000000001% of the UK.

[Dromedary]

So the Government is messing up as usual - a building free for all if your council is late putting in their plan, and no school unless it's one of Gove's hobby horse schools (you know, those ones that don't need any oversight by anyone and whose staff don't need any qualifications).

[TheXxed]

Daisychain01 I really don't know how to respond to your comment but I will try.

There is a real need to more homes to be built existing brownfield land cannot satisfy current demands. No one is suggesting concreting over the entire UK and creating a mess for our granchildren to deal with. Just building homes so they have somewhere to live.

[winterhat]

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.

True, but if 1 per cent of the green space gets built over each year, we'll have paved over the whole country in 100 years. Removing green space never goes backwards, only forwards.

[AgaPanthers]

But it wouldn't be 1%, it would be less than that, more like 0.2%

[Bombaybunty]

But where will the Hog's Back dogger go?

[AgaPanthers]

They'll just have more of an audience

[daisychain01]

AgaPanthers - my point is supported by what winterhat has said - if 1 per cent of the green space gets built over each year, we'll have paved over the whole country in 100 years. Removing green space never goes backwards, only forwards

My comment about HS2 is that it's the thin end of a very thick wedge, if only people can see it for what it is - these circumstances are inter-related - once HS2 has ripped up precious ancient woodlands, monuments, people's lives - it will be open-season for developers, the bulldozers will be in there like a shot. Greenbelt will soon be a thing of the past - I personally don't see that as progress, sorry.

I'm suggesting that NIMBY'ism is often a label placed on people who simply want there to be something left for them and future generations.

And the politicians make promises like "we really do care about the environment, we care about bio-diversity" then come out with stuff like "don't worry we can move that 300 year old woodland to a different location" (paraphrased quote by Justine Greening, who clearly knows sweet-FA about anything - she was 'reshuffled' into a non-job, 2 months after saying that, what a surprise!).

I'm by no means an extremist Green Party member, just someone who can't bear to see the Government squandering massive amounts of money on loony projects that rip up our country, give no real benefit and leave debt for our children to soak up.

As the marketing slogan says "when it's gone, it's gone" - so let's not be quite so hasty.

[IrishBloodEnglishHeart]

I'm suggesting that NIMBY'ism is often a label placed on people who simply want there to be something left for them and future generations

The NIMBYs I encounter are genuinely not thinking beyond next week. They just want everything to stay the same as long as they need it to. After that they couldn't care less about future generations.

I have been to speak at several planning committee meetings, appeal hearings and inquiries and been called all the names under the sun by these people. Why only last month I turned up at one Town Hall to be greeted by ranty-man shouting "are you the bastard from (insert name of organisation) that wants to devalue my property". Impact on property prices is the most frequently recurring lament I hear.