To think that people who object to planning applications for new homes are selfish

[LauderSyme]

My aim is not to be goady or induce a bunfight (though I well understand some of you might think that), but rather to try to understand a different point of view without judging it.
I live in a generally well-heeled and very "civilised" area; most of the properties are immaculately kept, many are sizable with large gardens, the public realm is well-maintained and crime rates are relatively low. It is amongst the top retirement hotspots in the UK. It is a lovely place to live and I appreciate our quality of life.
I am a tenant who has never owned a property. I work full-time but have a low household income, partly due to being a single parent. My flat is one of the ahem less desirable properties in my area. I would dearly like to have a secure home and a garden for my dc, but the only way I am likely to achieve this is if I am lucky enough to inherit.
The exorbitant cost of housing is mainly driven by an acute shortage of stock. Developers frequently put forward planning applications to build new homes in my area, but without fail, residents form protest groups to fight the proposals tooth and nail. Many applications are ultimately refused or watered down due to local opposition.
AIBU to think that this is selfish? Most of the protesters are fortunate enough to own their own home in a nice area, and it seems that they wish to deny this privilege to other people. Do they just not care that other people's lives are blighted by the housing crisis, as long as they are not inconvenienced? I feel that they are motivated purely by self-interest; does anyone have any other convincing arguments?

January, I will never own my own home, as most of my peers without megabucks parents to help with deposits etc won't in my area. It's intensely hard to give a fuck about people who need their precious homes to be permanently worth £500k-1mill to be honest with you. What's the alternative exactly, the bits that are already very built up get more and more so, just so Mr and Mrs Moneybags can have a pretty view? There are only a few GPs surgeries on the island anyway and you have your pick of them, if schools couldn't cope I daresay they would enlarge the school or send some pupils to a different one. Not up to date with the sewers, but I would imagine the states would hardly leave people drowning in sewage as they're still in love with the dwindling tourism industry.

YABU

We need green spaces to survive.
I don't want everything to be concreted over for the greed of developers.

I'd rather have more birds and wildlife than concrete boxes.

A new build estate is being built on green belt near us. This would be fine except no new school will be built, no doctors surgery and no hospital. Road are already congested.
New builds tend to be designed by builders rather than architects hence they have terrible proportions and look a bit rubbish.

more birds and wildlife than concrete boxes in theory we all would Chardonnay. But what about the homeless and the forever renters? What do you propose we do about them?

I'm sorry but I think some of these objections based around the impact on traffic and local amenities really need to google the community infrastructure levy and s106 agreements. Developers don't just get planning permission and build without any consequences

While you're at it Google all the cases where the developers evade, avoid and just plain ignore their S106 duties and the companies openly offering to help them, and the almost total lack of enforcement by Local Authorities. The S106 rules are a mess, and the "planning" system as a whole is a joke, particularly in relation to transport and flooding.

They still won't to afford what developers charge. Most new developments on London get marketed in the Far East. How does that help the homeless?

We can't build over every patch of green.

Most new developments on London get marketed in the Far East

That's tiny part of the overall market. Most people on this thread appear to live in small villages and towns.

You're being wilfully blind about the plight of ordinary people in the UK.

What was the stat quoted upthread? 14% or something of the UK is built upon.

No I'm not.
I live in London and that's what I see.

That statistic didn't take into account roads, infrastructure and land that's unsuitable .

But even so, I want more green spaces and parks in London. It's essential for human wellbeing.

14% or something of the UK is built upon.

How much would be OK with you - 50%? 75%? I think the "% built on" line is ridiculous.

I'd like to see it turned around so that where big developments are planned, with promises of schools and shops and surgeries and new roads and a certain percentage of affordable homes, all of those things have to be built before the larger luxury heavy profit houses are built.

Some councils are wise to this, at any rate. I live - wait for it- in an affordable rented (HA) new build, in a small mixed development, with beautiful build quality and ample parking and gardens, right next to a school, in a village where you can usually get a same day appointment at the doctor's. No, I really do!! . And the council stipulated that the affordable housing be completed first. (Just as well, because build nice houses as he might, the developer is definitely, er, pretty typical of the species )

I think council planning departments (at least some of them) should be credited with more sense and fair- handedness than they generally are. But they are up against it, from all sides.

We need an enormous national debate about how houses should look, how best to enhance existing communities, how to encourage older people to stop "bedroom blocking" and move out into smaller accommodation, whether there's a place for second homes at a time of housing crisis and how to discourage them if not, the advantages of building serious amounts of social housing, how to incorporate properly, seriously sustainable techniques into housebuilding, etc etc etc etc......The chances of that happening under this government? Close to zero!

How much would be OK with you - 50%? 75%? I think the "% built on" line is ridiculous.

How many people with no homes of their own are okay with you?

I'd rather have more birds and wildlife than concrete boxes.

Yes, we all would, but new homes need to be built (perhaps less would need to be built if we were to clamp down on second homes and encourage older people to stop under occupying though).

We need to look at ways to build developments that incorporate green space and encourage wildlife, and that are a pleasure to see and be in, rather than the opposite.

Which means putting pressure on the Government to put pressure on the developers. Or reinstate direct state controlled construction of social housing, rather than the Govt. bunging their developer mates more of our hard earned tax money to build another dogs' dinner...

We cannot cover the UK with roads and houses. Percentages of built on land are meaningless.

How many people with no homes of their own are okay with you?

None, now you answer my question.

BTW we don't have a UK wide housing crisis - we have a ridiculous over-concentration of jobs and resources in a few populous areas.

People are dying of air pollution in London.

This is why we need more green spaces, just to able to breathe.

*yes, it is terribly selfish not to want your home flooded because of over-development uphill, not to want your road made dangerous because of blocked sightlines, or (for a big estate development) not to want the local schools, GPs and roads even more overloaded.

while many existing properties in reach of facilities lie empty or half ruined because the tax structure means it is cheaper to throw up tatty tiny new builds than to refurb decent older homes.*

this ^^ and :

*The people who stun me are the ones who are vigorous Remainers, but object to the building of houses to provide homes for the population, which is increasingly in considerable part because of EU immigration.

No, before anyone starts, I'm not a xenophobe. I just think we need to think hard about what level of population we actually want on a finite and already quite crowded island. That is the conversation that needs to be had.
the housing shortage is due to a huge population increase too. We need to get every EXISTING house inhabited. Buy to leave?*

We cannot cover the UK with roads and houses. Percentages of built on land are meaningless.

I genuinely can't even work out what you meant by this non-statement. How on earth can percentages of built on land be 'meaningless'?

None, now you answer my question

You can't have it every way. We need to build homes.

You can't seem to connect the two thoughts.

One way to handle a housing shortage while preserving green belt would be to go up instead of sprawling out.

The UK should look at how flats and apartments are made to work in other countries. Excellent sound insulation between units and doormen/doorwomen/concierges at entrances to control who goes in and out, security cameras in lifts and hallways, community centers with play parks and swimming pools that people in a block share.

If tower blocks included shops and offices on the lower floors, people could live directly above their work and not even need a car to get to the supermarket.

This would be similar to the Arcosanti concept.

Currently what is happening where my mother and MIL live is that a house is demolished and replaced with a block of 12 flats or 7 or 8 small houses. No consideration is made for increased traffic on the roads, that there are no shops or anything to do in the immediate area, drainage, sewerage, utilities, schools. The result is that the local schools are grossly overloaded and traffic is practically gridlocked most days during rush hour.

A new development of 1000 houses is about to be dumped on us, on green belt and woodland around a village. It will murder the village. The plans include a 'green corridor' through this massive development. It's a grass verge. It's being dumped on a busy junction where traffic is already a slow moving mess from 7-9.30 am and 3.30-7pm, and if there is an accident as there is about 2 days out of 5, delays can take literally hours. What is really needed is 2000 more cars coming in and out of that junction daily.

This was fought and fought by locals, and pushed through by government. It's on major flood land. So that'll be fun too. But our council is broke and housing developments are being thrown up on every field and small patch of green in the area. The green belt has shrunk massively and several miles of open farmland that contains several small villages is currently under threat from another massive industrial development.

Of course it'll be forced through because money is the only thing that matters in the end.

Can't breathe money.

Our children will end up paying for this.

Those believing that a big estate will benefit the town and keep shops open are often miss understanding the impact. Shops are closing because increasingly people are spending online. Banks are closing because more people bank via a phone app. A 2000 home estate on the edge of a city would mean more traffic into the city centre so more hassle going in. I live 35 min away from nearest large urban area and HATE battling traffic. I'd rather go by train, and seeing as these new estates are often nowhere near a transport link many now use online shopping options- Ocado/Amazon etc etc so shops continue to close despite new estate.