To be sick to the back teeth of NIMBYism

[KnotNora]

I live in a village which is ruled with an iron village by a core of villagers who seem intent on sending us back to the dark ages.

This all started with a planning application for a housing development on a disused field. There was a very loud and vocal group who organised the no campaign and managed to get the application turned down three times (it's now gone to a final appeal).

Following on to this they are using the group to seemingly campaign against any development whatsoever. In the last year they have campaigned against single houses, a development of 6 houses, a planning application to change the use of a garage/cart house to a granny annex and now they are campaigning against an application for a single house on a crappy piece of land used by teenagers to drink on a weekend.

The main person writes a letter and then hands them out at the village hall and to all the old folks, gets them to sign it and then posts them off himself. He acts as proxy for online objections. Most of the reasons are scaremongering about losing our village, if we let them win once we'll be overrun etc.

He's just been round with another campaign to stop the demolishment of a house in the village which is owned by a train company. He wants the village to purchase it and turn it into a museum. It's a bog standard house with seemingly no amenity value at all.

AIBU to be sick and tired of a group of NIMBYs who don't seem to understand that people need houses to live in! It doesn't help that they make up the parish council which objects to any and all planning in the village. They shouldn't be allowed to scaremonger amongst the older members of the community like this.

provided you're not a total dick, you shouldn't actually try to stop houses being built.

I must be a dick then. I can live with that.

YABVVVVU. I want to leave London because I'm fed up with no green spaces, apart from our local parks which are overrun with ASBO-types and their feral dogs.

I suggest you move to paved-over town.

Well, to answer another poster, how many people want a traveller's site next to where they live? I certainly wouldn't.

Not me either, thanks.

Angelos I don't wish to single you out, but your house was probably built on once unspoilt countryside once upon a time and you moving there (or whoever first occupied the house) in search of the quiet life made it ever so slightly noiser and busier.

My parents are the pits when it comes to this. They live on a large 70s housing estate (one of about six) in what had been a largish village until farm land was built over for housing in the 1960s & 1970s and transformed it into an overspill/dormitory town for Birmingham and the Black Country.

Any new developments (all pretty small scale) they howl with protest, attend meetings etc and complain about it changing or spoiling the town - despite the fact the estate they bought on altered the character of the town far more dramatically than a few hundred homes at the periphery.

They moved there when the estate was newish and housing was fairly affordable for people on average wages, their whole attitude smacks of 'I've got mine, now the generation below me can fuck off'. I've called them on it a few times - what if the protesters who objected to your house being built on farmland held sway but they don't seem to be able to answer that one.

Angelos I don't wish to single you out, but your house was probably built on once unspoilt countryside once upon a time and you moving there (or whoever first occupied the house) in search of the quiet life made it ever so slightly noiser and busier.

This is true of everyone's house. Ergo no one has the right to complain about new developments, unless they're homeless.

The natural tension between residents and developers balance one another to create a force not dissimilar to the free market, in which (hopefully) only well-conceived developments are permitted to proceed.

A planing application has just gone in for 550 house next to mine (housing estate, nearly all big detached), I have objected for one reason and one reason only.....the traffic. It's crazy, we are a small market town, every edge of it is being developed, the 550 houses (was 1000, but was turned down) will take our estate right up to the edge of a beautiful national trust property....hence the traffic. On Easter Friday the traffic was at a stand still, literally. Every morning and evening it's gridlocked. I can't think of a more unsuitable place to build. This is the kind of thing people object to. They want the land because they can build big fuck off houses and charge a fortune.....sod the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever and will spoil the quality of life for those of us already here.

I live on the edge of a large town (or at least I thought it was the edge) - perhaps a mile from the motorway junction. Chose the area because of the few green open spaces and being that little bit 'out' suited us. Not any more... housing estate, upon housing estate have been built - an area earmarked for commercial development is now going to be 4000+ houses, another 9,000 between us and the motorway, a huge expansion to the industrial estate. It's horrible. None of the housing is actually affordable (unless you're entitled to social housing). Our street is 1930s semis and bungalows - three storey town houses have been built literally backing onto the bungalows - I mean the fences butt up against one another - loss of privacy, loss of sunlight - its a fucking disgrace!!

Everything we liked about the area has gone so we'll very likely move... yes we are NIMBYS but we just want to bring our kids up in a nice area with a little bit of space.

One interesting question is: the post-war era saw a massive boom in housing. Think about any town or even village you know, and the number of houses that date from the 50s-70s... the whole green edge of many must have been one giant building site.

Many of the people objecting live in houses that date from that era. So what has changed between now and then that makes people so resistant to almost any change now? Is it individualism? A lack of experience of living in such close proximity to others (as was the case for many families in the early C20)? The advent of the car, with people living in a village (that they protect fiercely) but working in a neighbouring town or city, and wanting to maintain distinctions between those two types of space?

I agree entirely with the argument that the housing that's being built isn't affordable or space-efficient, btw. I do believe we need cheaper, denser development.

if you think new development will necessarily mean affordable homes you are sadly wrong.

I thought this about a new development just outside our village, I was very pro as the plan was to have 80% affordable housing - this is what we were told.

Turns out they have 10 small terraced houses in a huge development of 4 bed exec homes, a huge supermarket and a massive business park and its a fucking eyesore. Plus they've shut off a bridleway and built over it.

Its really shit, especially as in the middle of our local town there are loads of brownfield sites that could be developed.

Oh, and its a flood plain.

The developers literally don't give a shit about that, I expect the flooding will be diverted into our village now.

I'm not (overly) resistant to well planned growth in our area per se. But there seems to be minimal consideration for existing properties / estates etc. Many of my neighbours are in their 80's and have lived in their bungalows for years. The whole street objected to the three storey town houses being built directly behind the bungalows but to no avail. We suggested single storey dwellings or even normal two storey houses but the developers could not have cared less about the elderly residents and made that pretty clear at the planning meeting. The new properties are crammed in with teeny tiny gardens so no one gets any space or privacy. It's nuts

I do think that's a really good point little - and one where communities have a huge role to play. Some of the 'new' homes going up are just really poor in design terms. There are less impactful ways of providing new housing. We need more cooperation between communities, planners and the state to deliver high quality, low cost, low impact housing that doesn't involve silly bits of design that massively increase overlooking.

Like I said before, I'd like to see each place be given a non-negotiable quota for new homes, and locals working with planners to work out where the best place to site them would be in terms of land allocation (the answer would NOT be 'in the next town' ). (Kind of like a more exact, precise version of what already happens with housing numbers and land allocations in a council's plan).

Obviously I appreciate that homes need building but there is loads of brown-site areas they could use. I think it is only natural that people who moved to a certain area for peace and quiet don't want that to change.

All wealthy baby boomers complaining about their views being spoilt and pretending that it's concern about road infrastructure or schools

Actually that isn't true always.

I've objected to a massive planning application on fields in this area. I'm not wealthy, I'm not a baby-boomer. I am massively concerned about roads and schools but I am even more concerned because of the flood risk. Basically building these houses will cause the drainage of the fields to flow downwards to our houses - and I don't think that is ok.

FWIW there was a development at the end of my road (one house down) which I didn't object to and which has gone ahead.

I think labelling everyone who wants to object to a planning application as a NIMBY is lazy. For sure there are many people who object to lose a view, but there are others who have educated themselves and researched and object for very valid reasons

The trouble is, developers sometimes don't want brownfield land because it needs expensive remediation work doing. It's one of the many bonkers things about relying on a development industry that has to put profit before everything else for something as essential as homes.

One thing I'd really like to see is removal of the 'unearned increment'. I.e. when a hectare of land near Oxford gets planning permission, it goes from being worth about 10k for agriculture to being worth £4m. All that has happened to that land is that a state-run body has decided it can be built on. No-one has done ANY work whatsoever for that massive uplift in value. It accounts for 70-80% of a house's value. If we annihilate it by taxing the hell out of it, and make good use of compulsory purchase orders by the state, we could prevent land banking, and move from a system of land ownership that means that large areas of the country are in the hands of the few to something more modern and fair.

What is wrong with wanting some level of protection to the lifestyle that you've chosen to live in? I have a holiday house which will become my permanent residence in a few years time. It's in an extremely small community with a very unique way of life. It would be a travesty if they started trying to build executive villas on the edge of the ocean. Fortunately, it's largely escaped notice for any development (and the costs would be prohibitive anyway). I want to live there because of that community and way of life. Why should I be happy if I uproot my lift to move there and some idiot decides to turn it in to the next drunken holiday hotspot?

Are you being serious Midnite?

shovetheholly If improvement to the infrastructure and other changes (such as good schools) for which you are not responsible make the value of your house increase by leaps and bounds - when you sell will you be content to have the increase taxed the hell out of it?

If at some future time you or you and your OH are alone in a home bigger than you "need" will you be content to be accused of land banking and forced to sell up at what some official valued says is what a family can afford to pay?

andrew - You seem confused about what landbankign is. I'm not talking about individual home owners who occupy a hosue with land. I'm talking about the banking of really large parcels of land for the purpose of releasing it at the point where it can make maximum profit (these are parcels on which tens, hundreds, even thousands of homes will fit).

I don't see why developers/land owners should make private profit from a decision that is made by the state. Surely, the uplift could be better spent on helping to fund new, affordable homes. It is VERY hard indeed to get data on land ownership in this country, but from what we know, patterns of ownership in some areas can only be described as feudal, with vast tracts of the country in the hands of a very few people who have held it for centuries!! (Particularly in Scotland).

The overoccupation thing is a completely separate point. This is where you have, say, one person in a 10-bedroom home. It has nothing to do with landbanking. And yes - I do believe that part of the solution to our housing problem may be to encourage older people who have significant social and health care needs to move into suitable accommodation where their needs can be met and where significant problems like social isolation can be tackled, e.g. extracare facilities. if you look at the stats and at health and social care budgets you can see that many governments and local authorities are already planning for a scenario where a lot of care for older people is paid for by the equity released by selling such properties.

andrew - I should also make clear that the point about landbanking is about the granting of planning permission to CONVERT land from agricultural or other uses (low value) to property (high value) thus producing an unearned increment of around £3.9 million per hectare in Oxfordshire! It is not about cases where land is already used for housing so permission has already been granted!! That is a totally different case.

One thing I'd really like to see is removal of the 'unearned increment'. I.e. when a hectare of land near Oxford gets planning permission, it goes from being worth about 10k for agriculture to being worth £4m. All that has happened to that land is that a state-run body has decided it can be built on. No-one has done ANY work whatsoever for that massive uplift in value. It accounts for 70-80% of a house's value. If we annihilate it by taxing the hell out of it, and make good use of compulsory purchase orders by the state, we could prevent land banking, and move from a system of land ownership that means that large areas of the country are in the hands of the few to something more modern and fair.

Sounds complicated.

When you buy a piece of land, it carries the promise of appreciation and the risk of depreciation. If we're to deprive buyers of the former, we must protect them from the latter.

Why not just let the market sort this out.

I'm not labelling everyone who objects to planning a NIMBY. I'm labelling the specific group in my village who object to any change whatsoever. Be it 160 houses or a cart house conversion they don't want it. That is NIMBYism. Especially when their solution is to send all development to the next town.

apple - it's not that complicated. You essentially tax the 'unearned' part at 100% - which is effectively the same as wiping it out so that the value of the land falls to the agricultural value. If the agricultural value depreciates, then so be it. It effectively stops land being a commodity.

It has actually be enshrined in law previously - under Labour governments after the war. Always repealed by the Tories, though.

shove All right - so the individual homeowner is not land banking. But a homeowner may benefit from the decision of the State to improve communications or build a new school - why should the homeowner keep the benefit and without paying even CGT?

As for "under occupation" - hands off. If what was formerly a child's bedroom is now a study or a hobby room or a guest room that's not under occupation, it's different occupation. It's for homeowners to decide when to downsize, and it's not for Authority in any shape or form to "encourage" people to do what is not compulsory. That's a slippery slope.

I'm afraid it's already happening Andrew. If you dig down into housing predictions in your area, you're likely to find that equity release from homes is already factored into demographic forecasts for health and social care. The encouragement is already happening too, partly with marketing and partly with the running down of the care system til it breaks.

I agree with you that it's wrong but I suspect from the opposite end of the political spectrum, because I am concerned about what happens to those with no equity to release if the push factor is that the "free" care on offer is minimal and awful in quality. Not because I'm concerned about the plight of single occupiers in 14 room houses.

It's wrong for two different reasons, then!

14 room houses are not the problem. It's the three-bedders whose owners' DC have moved out which have some of the we-know-best brigade licking their chops. See the website of a rather nasty outfit called the Intergenerational Foundation if you want to feel queasy about your prospects of making your own decision about when to move on.