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?

Large village here

With developers planning on making it larger with no changes to the roads

The doctors surgery is already at breaking point, the schools are all full

But yep, jam even more houses into a small area

I am sure you are right OP and some people want to stop development for selfish reasons but some people dont

Interestingly I work in a career connected with plannjng and am often at planning committee meetings - when the applicant is a social housing provider we tend to get few if any objections: people seem to understand the need they are meeting, and their developments tend to be in much more carefully chosen locations and have much better layouts and far better architecture than the likes of persimmon, Barrats etc.

Let's just tarmac over the whole country and be done with it

I'm another fence sitter here. I totally take your point OP, but we have had a situation similar to the one you describe in our village. We own (not mortgaged now due to us working hard to pay it off) a nice detached property in a "desirable" village. A recent planning application to build 85 houses on the field across the road was fought (and eventually beaten) tooth and nail by locals for a number of reasons including access, overloading of local services, congestion, and the ruination of the historic nature of the village.

Not withstanding this, the development would have devalued our property by something like 40 - 50k and had a similar effect on other houses in the area. This is our pension. We are planning to sell up and downsize shortly and the loss of this amount of capital would seriously effect us. I'm sorry if some people think it's selfish of us (or that we're twats!!!) to fight for an investment we've worked hard for over many years but fight we did and will continue to do so. I accept that people need to live somewhere, but we started out in a modest property in a cheap area and worked our butts off to get where we are. Why shouldn't we feel aggrieved if that investment of time, effort and money is threatened?

We weren't lucky or privileged: we started at the bottom and worked our way up.

They are building 300 new houses which I am objecting too as they are not needed. There are houses for sale eery where in the town. Nothing sells quick. Many properties are empty. The local doctors won't cope, neither will any of the other local services.

This makes no sense. If you're right that there's no demand for them then they won't sell - so who will be using the doctor?

I completely agree with you, OP. People always insist there's some excellent reason why their area is particularly unsuitable, but in reality everyone says that. If they're building big expensive houses it's because there's demand for that. The people buying them are going to come from somewhere, and so an extra house is going to be available.

I do kind of get it. We bought our house just over a year ago and the big new development planned near us makes me a bit nervous because I am scared of ending up in negative equity. But that's a selfish thought, and I recognise it as such. There's a housing crisis, and I already have a house: I'm not (and shouldn't be) the most important consideration here.

Do they just not care that other people's lives are blighted by the housing crisis

No and why should they?

Thank you all for replies: the lack of commensurate infrastructure and amenities is a very persuasive argument.
pebbles I moved here after my parents retired here, largely because I really wanted my son to have a positive male role model in his life (his grandad), and I knew their support would be invaluable to us both. Before this we were living in Greater London, so even more expensive to get on the housing ladder!

The 106 agreements can be bloody useless.

Each application is decided on its own merits and the pressures it alone would put on the local infrastructure. Nobody sits down and adds up the impact on the local roads of 180 houses +120 houses + 16 houses
+30 houses + warehouse being converted into 6 flats + 650 houses in the neighbouring district which will have an impact on this one because of the traffic interchange.

Individually, each of those is deemed sustainable. But if all of those get built, we're fucked. Royally.

Not withstanding this, the development would have devalued our property by something like 40 - 50k and had a similar effect on other houses in the area. This is our pension. We are planning to sell up and downsize shortly and the loss of this amount of capital would seriously effect us. I'm sorry if some people think it's selfish of us (or that we're twats!!!) to fight for an investment we've worked hard for over many years but fight we did and will continue to do so.

How much more than you paid for it is your house 'worth'? And how on earth did you' work for' that money?

Yes, I do think you're a selfish twat, actually.

That's fair enough lauder it will be lovely for him to have family nearby

We've had another third of the population added to our small village in 5 years. All build on greenbelt. I would never have seen myself as a NIMBY but the pressure on the environment, roads, surgeries and schools has been really, really awful. Rather than increasing public transport and bus services they cut them and we've since had flooding where there were no issues previously.

Agree that developers are purely in it for profit. There were several traffic and environmental surveys done that should have prevented at least one of the new developments going ahead but these were 'mysteriously' overturned. Planning Officers are under huge pressure to agree to all development no matter what the impact on the environment and local communities.

I'm with the OP.

I live fairly rurally in a well-to-do area in a very small town (more like a village TBH) We have two primary schools here and every year the reception class intakes get smaller and smaller because no young people can afford to live here. We don't even have a playground or a football pitch anymore due to lack of interest.

I live in a 1970s house on a street of similar, which were built for young families. They are, with the exception of us, all lived in by retired couples or singles. Ours are the only children in the street. We applied for an extension (only possible way we could afford to stay in this town) and every single neighbour objected. There was only one that was a legitimate planning objection and that was only minor. One person objected because he didn't think his greenhouse would get as much sun and his tomatoes wouldn't grow.

A locally based developer wanted to build twenty houses inc ten affordable homes on a brownfield site. More than a hundred people objected. This is going to become a town populated by pensioners and rich people and there's seemingly nothing that we can do about it.

Totally agree lumela the developers can pretty much hold the planners to ransom at the moment and it's a nightmare

The ice-age woodland directly opposite my house (part of a unesco world heritage site) is due to be demolished soon for new houses. It means the loss of heritage and wildlife. It also means that our road will become a danger zone with cars parked everywhere on a corner that people like to go round at 70. Terribly selfish for us to have tried to stop it, I know, but luckily the greedy (new) landowner put a stop to our protest.

My dh is a developer, obviously doesn't do it for charity but gets a thrill from creating jobs and homes with affordable housing. He has never lost a planning application as his schemes tend to enhance the area, not the reverse.

the developers can pretty much hold the planners to ransom at the moment and it's a nightmare
Especially in a district like ours with no local plan in place. AAAARGH! Skylarks? Reedbeds? Grade A agricultural land? Ah, sod 'em: we don't need them, do we?

Er, yes, we do.

Agree. YADNBU. Can you guess what line of work I am in 😁

Yes. You are absolutely being unreasonable. The 650 homes currently being built behind my house have the following effects:

• the road infrastructure locally is already jammed - add another 1200 cars and leaving home at any point in rush hour is going to be impossible.
• our homes are already at a flood risk, but the drainage plans for the new site don't take account of this and plan to run all water run-off past our house, so it's only a matter of time until our house is under water.
• the land being built on is essential farm land for producing food for our population - we keep building on farm land and not realising that soon there might be houses for people but no food, unless we import at extortionate prices and with dubious environmental/animal welfare cost.
• our train station is a direct link to London. Wonderful! But the trains every morning are already 12 coaches (max length per platform) and the trains are unsafely overcrowded. Add another 650 houses near a train station and statistically you're looking at a minimum of 200 people extra in the trains every morning.

So our semi-rural, already at its limit, village, is now to become an overcrowded, undermanned and underesourced town. The local geography means extending roads or train platforms is not possible unless you demolish peoples houses and completely change the character of the village. It makes me want to cry, every day, when I see the hawks hovering over the field, and then the diggers rolling towards them, and knowing that soon their food source will be gone. What have we done?

I feel the same about the local skylarks, Jonty.

It sounds as if you live somewhere similar to us.

Your desire to own your own house does not trump everyone else's rights

But it isn't "everybody else's rights", is it? Because an increasing number of people are in the same situation as I am, and our "right" to a secure, affordable home is not being met.

Let's just tarmac over the whole country and be done with it

A massive overstatement. Less than 14% of land in the UK is built on.

I don't object to new homes if they are needed for local people, and built on brown field sites.

I do object if they are built on green field sites for people from London to come and buy after selling their properties in London for a high price.

There are a lot of empty properties across the UK, and there are lots of affordable homes across the UK. When people say they can't buy a house, what they mean is, they can't afford a house in the area they want to live. That is not the same as not being able to afford a house at all.

Also, infrastructure improvements are not being made. More and more people are being squeezed onto inadequate roads and trains, surgeries are struggling to cope, schools are full. The developer contributions are not adequate and cannot create more space where there is none. Even if you get a new primary school, you don't get a new sixth form. If you get a new GP surgery you don't get more money going into the new hospital.

People tell me we need more houses. Well I don't see people camping out outside my local council office because they are homeless. We don't need more houses. We need the empty ones brought into use. We need more employers to take an enlightened attitude to home and remote working. We need more employers not to be in and around London. And we need people stop bleating that they can't buy in an expensive area, and buy where they can afford. Cut your cloth to suit.

I know a lot of the planning applications here are based on the fact they always seem to be based on the fact mostly they are on green belt when we do have brown belt land derelict which they don't want to build on as it costs more money.

Also though it is small town and people object to anything new...Supermarkets despite there been a desperate need here.

All these people going on about how sad they are for the local wildlife. You know what would be even better for the local wildlife? If your existing house was compulsorily purchased, demolished and the land allowed to return to nature over the next 100 years or so. Sound good?

We objected - successfully - to a development behind our old house. The site had had one detached house on it, and the developers applied for permission to put up 8 2-bed flats. From having a garden bordering on the bottom of our garden, we would have had the parking area for the flats, with at least 8 spaces.

The flats would have stuck out like a sore thumb, in the area, and would have put more traffic onto a tiny side road. They are also cramped and badly designed - the bathroom was so small, the door had to open out into the hall, and the second 'bedroom' was only just large enough to fit a single bed and open the door.

In addition, the developers had a history of ignoring the conditions put on them by the council, so we had no faith that they would be made to mark the development according to the conditions set by the council.

We objected, with a group of other local residents, and it was upheld. The planners later approved a plan to put three houses on the site, which was a far better plan for the area.

the development would have devalued our property

I am not convinced that this is the case. I was reading an article about new houses in Canterbury last week. Around 5000 new homes in and around the city, and the newspaper was forecasting price rises of around 25%. Not price reductions. Building new houses does not make prices fall. And at least where I am, houses are not affordable. And the ones that are, keep having extensions built, so they are no longer affordable.