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?

If telling lies were valid grounds for refusal, almost no planning applications would be approved.

I agree with everyone on the green spaces issue. We need to preserve these at all costs. I think it needs to be easier for unused buildings in towns to be changed from shops to homes/flats. Every empty property needs to be filled. Often building new builds are out of a lot of peoples budget anyway.

For me, protecting the countryside is more important.

it makes me sad that the term 'village' will cease to exist the way things are going

Our village is two smaller villages that have merged together

Its a mile (ish) between the first houses of the next town along and the last of the village houses

They want to fill in the gap

Thats just north, just east there is about half a mile between similar houses, planning oermission has been given to fill in that gap

Oh

And virtually no houses for sale, the ones that do go up (if they are on for a decent price) go within days

What is frustrating too is that so many new houses in some areas are bought by investors/ foreign investors so the problem of affordable housing shortage is not solved.

I am not anti-development - I work in construction so it's what I do for a living, however I am anti- the kind of development that's being proposed in my village. Almost 1000 new houses, majority 'executive' detached, no new infrastructure or facilities. The developers have argued that they cannot 'afford' to provide affordable housing and the council cannot afford to fight them so there will be none. There are already no school places with many of us having to drive to schools in the nearest town, which also has a shortage of school places (& no funds to build more schools)
Village GP is the only GP that accepts patients from the village and as of this spring their very existence is in doubt. There are no plans to build new healthcare facilities. The road through the village is a narrow victorian road which cannot be bypassed easily due to a railway and river, there are already queues through the village at busy times, these will be worse with 1000+ more residents. The victorian village has a victorian sewerage system that has burst several times since we've been here yet all proposals connect to this existing failing system. These are very real everyday problems before we get on to character & ecology (all green fields with loss of trees & hedgerows)
At one of the meetings held with developers & the parish council I asked why they weren't looking at smaller developments that covered a range of housing types and tenures appropriate to the village (sustainable development, elderly supported, affordable or live/work units) or at least plans for additional infrastructure to support the new residents and I was told 'because there's no money in it' and there is the crux of the housing crisis - profit. Where big profits are to be made by slowly building expensive houses, releasing them in a trickle to artificially keep prices high and avoiding any greater responsibilities to the community - the large housebuilders are and with the current government position of letting them do what the hell they want we will not come out of this crisis. NIMBYs actually have bugger all influence in the current system, housebuilders do though and that's the main issue.

Not sure about the 'stop older people under occupying' line. If older people all downsize, unless they move onto developments for the elderly as my parents did, will just be putting even more pressure on the 2 bed accommodation.
Most developers builds lot of four bed houses so families have the options if they can afford it which is usually the issue.

This is why developers need to be building more 2 bedroom houses, or flats- either with or without gardens- for the elderly to downsize into.

I wonder how many empty bedrooms there are in the UK? And how many grossly overcrowded young families? My guess is that if housing was distributed in a less grossly unfair way, there would be less need to build quite so much more.

Incidentally, the houses in the "unaffordable" part of our development are starting to sell now. Into the 3 bed farmhouse conversion opposite us have moved a couple in their 50s/60s- OK, very nice people, but just a couple. Oh, and their dog, of course . There are 2 4-bed, eye wateringly expensive executive detached homes on the other side, and again, there was a 60- something couple looking round it the other day. It's sold now- please God let it have gone to an actual family, and not as an "investment property" .

Meanwhile, I could, off the top of my head, reel off at least ten local families who would love to buy a house- if they could afford it.

FormerlyFrikadela01
The same people who shout about needing infrastructure are also the same people who oppose said infrastructure.

Really? You know all of us. Once again a poster trying to shutdown a discussion by posting rubbish.

The approved build near me was (as posted up thread) 2500 houses, it was supposed to come with, local stores, a GP, a dentist, play areas and a primary school. What they are building is 2500 houses of various sizes and nothing else.

It was a good design, it is now bullshit as the local area infrastructure can't cope with the new influx.

Or is that too hard to get your head around?

My point is simply that 14% is not a huge amount, that posters claiming the UK is 'full' are grossly exaggerating and that we can go beyond 14% without great detriment.
I haven't caught up with whole thread (and probably won't, the whole topic is just too bloody depressing), but when we're discussing this 14%, it's worth remembering that it applies to whole of the UK. Yup, that includes those acres and acres of empty Scotland between the border and Glasgow, and the Hebrides, and those vast tracts of Wales with bugger all except sheep, and all of that.

I've tried and failed to find the % for England only. No joy, but it must be substantially higher than that, especially in the south-east.

And, as a PP asks, how much is too much? Especially given that everyone will need water and so on, and the predictions for global warming are currently telling us that East Anglia is on course for a drop in rainfall. It's already the driest part of the UK. And the population is booming.

As regards schools, there is a shit-ton of new housing in the pipeline for the small town where I live. Next to one of the primary schools is a huge field, about the same size as the site of the school including its playing field. You'd think it would make sense to earmark that for school expansion but... it's about to be covered in houses.

Fucking genius. Where a problem could be solved before it started, nothing is done. Local schools are already at capacity.

lume

School is running out of parking

Across the road is a huge space earmarked for housing (makes the road by the school even more dangerous with 1,500 to 3,000 more cars on that road)

Same as you it would make sense to put aside a little of that land for car parking, maybe insisited on by the council as a good will gesture

But no, they are getting rid of a part of the sports field

Really? You know all of us. Once again a poster trying to shutdown a discussion by posting rubbish

No I don't know all of you. What I do know is that everytime I go to my parents village the village association have a stand outside the co-op (which incidentally they attempted to block the building of, it's attached to a GP surgery too) where they are trying to gather signatures for a petition against the new road. This is just a road, not houses or anything else, just a road to ease congestion. The blurb at the top of the petition is about how it will spoil the views, create traffic noise for the people on the outside of the village (where the bigger houses are) and affect property values. Nothing about flood plains or damage to wildlife or anything. It's just pure selfish NIMBYism.

I'm not against objecting development and completely agree that without proper planning there are any awful lot of very badly thought out developments. However my own personal experience in the 13 years I lived where my parents do is that the developments are opposed largely to keep the "exclusivity" of the village.

Where I live now no one gives a shit what gets built.

FormerlyFrikadela01

I agree that there are Nimbys that would protest about putting a birdbath in the local park and that they are in most if not all areas.

But I have seen the nimbys that are locals, and nimbys that are people that have moved in to the area. I have also seen nimbys that don't live locally at all and still come to protest, and yes I agree that they want to keep the "exclusivity" or feel of the village or town.

But they shouldn't be confused with those of us that have a genuine concern about what or how its being built.

lumela you need to look at population densities -the number of people per sq km
In 2013 the population density of England was 413 people per sq km, Scotland 68, Wales 149 and NI 135 ...
The figure for the UK as a whole in 2010 was 255 and it has obviously increased since then. The population density of Germany was slightly lower (229) and France about half that (114) ...however that is the UK as a whole...look at the figure for England alone - it becomes almost twice as densely populated as Germany and 4 times more than France...

Good point, unlucky. I had thought about that aspect ages ago, but not just recently.

Gosh, there's an awful lot to say about this subject.

I think most issues come down to local authority and central government incompetence/lack of care and a bad planning system, which gives LAs no powers to stop land-banking by developers and cherry-picking of easy to develop sites over brownfields. They (LAs) also neglect their duty of care in collecting the CIL and actually using it to improve local amenities where possible. Scandalous.

Central gov proposes to pay LAs, who are only too happy to increase their council tax pool, for developments over 750 homes. From memory, it comes to about £9k per home. Google this magic number and you'll see many developments across the country feature this many dwellings.

Do this is how you get happy developers and happy councils but angry residents. The more people object and kick up a fuss, the more the "system" has to take note. Look at what's happening around Greater Manchester!

stubbornstains
"I wonder how many empty bedrooms there are in the UK? And how many grossly overcrowded young families? My guess is that if housing was distributed in a less grossly unfair way, there would be less need to build quite so much more."

Isn't that communism? It has been tried in the past... Have you ever been to Russia, Cuba or China or talked to people from there?

I'm not against objecting development and completely agree that without proper planning there are any awful lot of very badly thought out developments. However my own personal experience in the 13 years I lived where my parents do is that the developments are opposed largely to keep the "exclusivity" of the village.

If you had a beautiful house surrounded by green space, you'd certainly not want to see new roads or an Asda springing up around it. After all, you probably would have paid through the nose for it.

MN has inserted an Asda hyperlink into my post. How mysterious.