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]

TheXxed - I respect your views, I do see the urgency of the situation as regards housing.

What isn't helpful and IMHO, doesn't move the debate forward usefully, is the NIMBY label that gets trotted out so liberally. And AgaPathers really nailed her colours to the mast "AIBU to hate NIMBYs?" - presumably that's anyone who she feels is, after all, using their democratic right to oppose a development they don't like. And they aren't holding a gun to people's heads to sign the petition - don't like it? Don't sign it. Your choice.

It's too simplistic to vilify, hate and call people hypocrites, as if they are evil nasty people from another planet .

[AgaPanthers]

It's not about something being left. If you drive a few miles outside London, the country's largely empty.

What they want is for NOTHING to change.

That is absurd, because our country is only what it is as a result of a process of continuous change.

If you stop that change you ironically get even more change, i.e. people being crammed into tiny little boxes because of rich and privileged people refuse to allow any homes to be built on land they themselves don't even own because they feel that their £2m house extends it domain far beyond it's 1/4 acre boundaries.

[daisychain01]

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

See, another generalisation - so, you're saying none of us here on MumsNet care about what happens to our children and the world they will inherit from us?

Or does that only applies to the damn NIMBY's ....

[TheXxed]

Unfortunately young people, those from areas experiencing high levels of deprivation and the homeless are often disenfranchised and are unable to exercise their democratic rights.

So there is an uneven discourse surrounding urban planning.

Peoples house prices are given an the weighting in terms of importance as over crowded households, homelessness and family separation.

[TheXxed]

Sent to soon.

That often fuels the bad feeling toward nimbys.

[daisychain01]

See, TheXxed, your points about the lack of equality in the housing situation really does get to the heart of the debate, and I can see why there is anger, but I also feel it is misplaced, because that imbalance isnt actually the fault of people who do own property (which they may well have worked their socks off to afford, who knows, its pointless generalising).

Isnt at least some of the anger more appropriately channelled towards the faceless, nameless urban planning people, who are making decision affecting housing - not making the so called NIMBYs the only source of evil? It is important for the weighting to be more evenly distributed.

It is a very complex problem and I am not totally negative to your argument, AgaPanther , I feel it only scratches the surface of a bigger crisis.

[Bowery]

I think you've all missed the point entirely.

Mr Government wants all the councils to build lots and lots of houses because:

1. House building employs people
   
2. It means buying lots of bricks, concrete etc
   
3. It also means people then buy furniture and stuff to put in their new houses.
   
4. The banks get a massive increase in mortgage lending and subsequent insurance etc.
   

Meaning that Mr Government:

1. Earns stacks of stamp duty.
   
2. Increases income tax revenue.
   
3. Increases VAT revenue
   
4. Makes loads of money in Corporation tax from the banking sector.
   

This is also known as 'Growth'.

You may also notice that the government is intent on providing growth in the South East and not so much up north.

In terms of NIMBY ism in Guildford. You don't have to look far to find that most councils are being pressurised into building large developments. Cambridge, Norfolk, Sussex, Dorset, Bucks etc, they're all on the list.

Back to Guildford. Although the council is spinning a nice old' yarn about doing the best for the whole of the borough, in truth, what is happening is the University of Surrey is trying to build 3000, (increased from the original 2000) houses on ANOB, AGLV and Green Belt on the Towns edge. It is likely that the Uni will earn a phenomenal amount of £Millions from the sale of its land. It will also pay a very large chunk of money to GBC to be used for affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough. There are other sites near Guildford under the same pressure, WISLEY Airfield, Slyfield, Dunsfold etc etc. you may also notice that the Uni Site and most of the others are not sited to the 'more expensive' areas in Guildford.

These developments will not affect house prices as they will be sold off in small chunks.

As a resident of Surrey, I for one hope that the council sees sense in that not all progress should be decided in monetary terms.

Good luck to the people who give their time and effort to oppose building on Green Fields. This nation, country, planet was not put here just for Mans greed and self satisfaction. It is time we considered ourselves as just tenants of the land, shared by all species.

Perhaps Mr Governement could spread the wealth around a bit and suggest we move some jobs to those who need it instead of ensuring the South East becomes richer than is fair.

[FlippingWhatsername]

It'st very easy to complain about the "nimby", but what is a nimby?

Conceptually, it is someone where you don't live, not liking something which they feel is shit for them which doesn't matter for you.

So, someone whose shoes you're not in so fuck 'em, then.

I think people who parrot the ridiculous phrase ought to be compelled by law to have whatever the "nimbys" didn't want built quite literally in their back yard, amusing for me, and a lesson in regurgitating stupid concepts favoured by low quality tabloids and low rent MPs.

[Procrastinating]

YANBU.
Where I live we have had petitions against a wind turbine (just one, huge petition against it), and a dozen 'affordable' homes. Both managed to stop the plans going ahead.

Instead of the affordable homes they are now building 3 'executive detached' homes on the land. That is Ok though, apparently.

[Ackie]

Greenbelt in the UK is only 14%. In Guildford the greenbelt is 89%. It is the duty of Guildford to protect a big % of the 14% for our future generations to enjoy. It is their choice what to do with it, not ours. We are only custodians of ou land for future generations. Mums should embrace that Wholeheartedly

[NeverKnowinglyUnderstood]

I hold my hand up. NIMBY am I
bastard developers have developed so much in our village that the sewage system can't cope the only primary school is over subscribed and probably going to have to close it's nursery class to make space for a 3rd reception class (fuck knows what they are going to do as all these extra children move up the school)
The Doctors surgery is now at capacity and waiting times are getting longer and longer.

AND they have the fucking cheek to apply for an extra 50 houses on a new field giving land to a play ground then when they get planning permission they re-enter their plans for 200!! houses with putting cash into a village fund for a playground should the parish council ever get any land to build a playground on.

Fuck the fuck off developers.. Not In My Back Yard.. It is an expensive part of the country and that is why they want to develop here.. so that they can charge more and make more money.. it is currently about £100,000 a bedroom.

Sorry Bit cross can you tell?

[maddening]

tell you what - we'll bulldoze the houses at the end of your road and build flats - tall tall flats - most cost effective and less land for more homes - don't like that? Because that is what it is like to live in a village that has grown over 600 years to have a housing estate the size of the village built next to it - and these developers aren't out for the philanthropy of it all - it is mega money. Yes there are plenty of brownfield sites that are expensive to clear.

I am a niaby - not in anyone's back yard - these developments take no consideration of the communities that they plan to build on.

I don't think we need the housing at the rate of building and I don't think the countryside should be sacrificed to try and build us out of trouble and I think that this approach is just storing up more trouble but at the end of it we'll have a lot less countryside and communities will suffer - the building needs to happen but more sympathetically - what a lot of places are seeing is a deluge of sustained attacks on these communities by companies with cash to spare to push it through and the councils cannot sustain the battle financially - at which point they have to approve even of the councils through things like neighbourhood and town plans that are coming out now in many areas which consider what that community needs such as housing, schools, facilities etc - this should hold some weight imo but is brushed aside as the developers are using the loop hole which is the easing of green belt regulations and the neighbourhood plans coming in - once they are in it would be harder for the developers which is why we've seen a glut of planning applications and councils are strapped to process and fight them all where there is public objection.

Absolutely the wishes of residents should be considered - there should be reasonableness from both sides - communities have to accept that there will be growth but developers should accept that increasing a community by 100% in 2 years is far too much.

[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.

[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!

[Alexcan17]

guildfordgreenbeltgroup.co.uk

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ConferencePear]

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

[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.

[AlecTrevelyan006]

the country needs more new homes

most greenbelt is nothing like most people think it is

there is loads of space

[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...?

[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.

[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