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?

Lumela - we have a local plan in place. Made no difference whatsoever unfortunately. In our village developers still managed to build on ancient woodland and ignored numerous wildlife and environmental surveys Hundreds and hundreds of objections were ignored too including the local MP such is the power of developers...

Agree with PP, you cannot expect to buy your first home in your dream location. I rented for 10 years before buying first flat in a real shithole. Sold at the right time to get a house with a garden in slightly nicer area, then finally sold that and moved to my dream home in dream area. But my house actually needs about £40k spending on it to make it my dream home. It's all about progression and starting small. I left home 22 years ago, I feel I had been able to start paying a mortgage straight away I would be nearly done by now!! As it happens, I've got 23 years left to pay.

The proposed developments in my area are on greenbelt YABU - NIMBY it took me 22 years to get here! I don't want 750 new homes in my DS school catchment that is oversubscribed and already takes 60 each year. School has already been developed to buggery and the only space left for more classrooms is the playing field.

I think there would be a lot fewer objections to more housing if it were carried out a lot more sensitively. Eco-friendly living in a way which enhances the countryside, not tramples all over it.

Where I live, there had been a lot of development recently. A fair amount of it has been on infill sites - brilliant, makes sense and they've put in a children's playground on the 'flood defence' zone of one of them (the development's on a hill next to a brook). Or some attractive flats next to the canal, I think they enhance the area.

Other areas, not so good - ugly brick boxes on green field sites which mar the area and have inadequate landscaping.

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?
Margaret, that's not exactly my whole point, is it? We do need, urgently, to discuss whether we want the UK's population to continue increasing, and if we do, how we plan to cope with it.

But don't worry, misrepresent the argument. That's fine.

We've just had plans for two developments in our village - one for 8 luxury homes around £700k each, and another for 35 "affordable" homes starting at around £320k and rising to about £550k. It is a very quiet rural hamlet, with narrow lanes and limited bus service/shop etc. Both sites are green fields. It will change our village forever, and one of the reasons we bought here is that it is small and quiet. If each home has 2 cars, it's adding at least 86 vehicles onto quiet roads. And the development of 8 will be seen straight from our kitchen and bedrooms. I'm absolutely fuming as are most of the other villagers, but is it even worth the effort of objecting as chances are it will all go through. Our local farmers are all diversifying - one has got into making wood pellets for BioMass boilers and we already have articulated lorries thundering in and out of the village, churning up the verges and causing havoc and another is trying to start off commerical boiler houses for chickens that are going to pollute the air and make mountains of traffic for. Yes I am selfish, I don't want any of it on my doorstep thanks, and I want the home that I love to stay quiet, peaceful and unpolluted.

Do you know exactly why these people are objecting?

We've fought several planning applications to build a new estate near to our house. The site is a woodland in green belt and an AONB. Many of the trees are 300+ years old. Added to this, our village is already rated poor for facilities and infrastructure.

A lot of people who oppose planning applications agree we need development but it needs to be in the right place. Housing developers don't particularly care about building in the right. All they care about is their profit margins and they're capitalising on the current push by Government to build. I've been watching this over the last few years and the numbers being proposed are staggering. One of the nearest big towns to us is going to build 35,000 houses in the next 20 years.

You need to do more reading as I don't think you understand the bigger picture of what is going on here.

just placemarking as can't do much on app. waiting to get on computer to comment

just placemarking as can't do much on app. waiting to get on computer to comment

just placemarking as can't do much on app. waiting to get on computer to comment

If they allow housing developments they really have to build more roads and bypasses to prevent what happens in semi rural areas. We live south of Cardiff: rivers, streams, railway lines and the coastline are natural boundaries so there's a limit to what other routes can be taken to get from roads southwest of Cardiff into the city. But still the council allow more and more housing estates and no more roads (or schools but that's for another day). I'm in a small village 3 miles from Cardiff and even at 7.30am the traffic is backed up to Barry. It's a nonsense.

MrsExpo, that is a selfish position in my eyes. You have no right to expect your house to keep increasing in value. You are pretty naive to be relying on it for your pension.

In the meantime, people have a basic need for a roof over their heads. I'd prefer to see those 85 have the chance of their own home than protecting your 'pension'.

A lot of people don't like infill but I think it's a good idea. Ok there's a bit of disruption while the houses are built but once done, they fit in. I'm also always glad when empty offices get knocked down and turned into housing if they are never going to be used for offices again. But people in my area have said they'd prefer a new town built on a green field site because it's less disruption while being built.

Also the quality of new housing is generally so poor. Tiny houses on tiny plots looking like a Lego set. When you get good quality houses it makes a big difference to an area. We have a really nice new estate in our area, but sadly it's on a flood plain! And there are electricity pylons running along the back of it, so I would not want to buy there. It's also quite a way from town and the railway station, and there is a very sporadic bus service.

Also, there need to be carrots to get single people out of large houses and into smaller ones and flats to free up 3 and 4 bed houses for families.

There are a lot of ways that the housing crisis can be solved but building expensive houses on green field sites in the south east of England is not the way to go.

There's a ugly 1960s block near me that is up for development. With some work it could be made into something nice with probably around 50 apartments in a very sought after area. There is zero interest from developers. They are however, doing absolutely everything they can to build on our greenbelt and to destroy the countryside. The fact it is flood plain and the infrastructure in that area is insufficient doesn't bother them at all. People are angry because it is not about improving housing it's about quick easy profits for the already very rich.

In the area I live we have had in the region of 4000 new homes built, with more on the way and a new primary school on one estate as there is a need.

The last housing estate, over 10 years ago and over 1000 homes built didn't have a school and it created problems

The new homes now being built will not push prices down but will create other problems, particularly traffic

The houses aren't built giving alternatives in transport, sustainable transport and sustainable houses with low carbon footprint aren't stipulated

I have no issue with building but I do have an issue with builder not being made to put in good standard of sustainable housing with waste water system, solar energy, ground source heating, cycle paths,

Our town is the same is with llangellith.
They have built lots of houses and estates around the outskirts of our town, but the road layout hasn't changed, therefore it is always too busy and often gridlocked.

Also, no extra schools so we are full to bursting but still they build....

A lot of people who oppose planning applications agree we need development but it needs to be in the right place.

And - what a coincidence - the 'right' place is Not Near You!

lumela firstly, you weren't the only person who made that point so I wasn't responding directly to you. But I still disagree with you. This isn't (just) about planning for a future growing population - though I don't know how else you intend to sustain our growing elderly population - but about the fact we don't have the houses for the people we have now. We are already in a housing crisis, so unless you want to actively shrink the population (and if so, I'd be both intrigued and scared to hear these plans) we need more housing. Debating future populations is a distraction in this particular discussion.

Buildling new houses isn't the only thing to do. We also need to look at empty premises, at the number of people who live alone in big properties and also consider building more flats in cities. I know they're not popular, but they take up so much less space. In other countries lots more people are happy to live in flats and I would rather build upwards in cities than destroy the countryside by building on greenfield sites.

YABU

The people objecting are just trying to maintain their community against the tide of unchecked development. I live in a lovely village that is a real tourist hot spot. It is impossible for young people to buy around here. Not because of the lack of building (300 houses this year in the local area) but because the majority of those house are bought as second homes by people from the cities or as part of investment portfolios for holiday lets.

The most recent set of houses is being built on a flood plain, despite objections. It has raised the flood risk for all of the cottages in the surrounding area. The developer has also neglected to work out how the GP surgery is going to cope with possibly 300+ more patients or how the local school might find more places. It is rampant greed on the part of the developer.

Do any of these sound like selfish reasons to you? Or is this actually just a village trying not to be completely done over by wankers (developers)?

YABU. If people have actively chosen to pay a premium for nice views, space around them, whatever, it's entirely natural to want to protect that. You want to live there because it's a nice area, but maybe if the housing density was higher, it wouldn't be as nice any more.

Dh and I work in producing the figures for housing projections- we have to work with the government on targets.

My very clever, statistician dh is continually harassed by wealthy local nimbys who name him on their campaign sites as some sort of devil incaranate who clearly doesn't understand how to reach the figures and is in the back pocket of developers.

We have rented for many years, have no relationship with any developers or incentive to produce inflated figures.
The amount of public money that is wasted when these local groups take it to inquiry is obscene.

If we keep on having children, we will need more housing, developers don't do it for love but that doesn't mean there is not a need.
Often brownfield sites are not suitable for many reasons.

One particular campaigner is banging on about air quality. I found him on twitter, he does long haul at least once a month. Classic NIMBY.

Yanbu OP and I love reading everyone's "I'm not a nimby BUT" posts

NannyOgg if they're all holiday homes, then they're not likely to be using the GP much or schools at all, are they?

This thread is full of this weird logic: 'no one even needs those homes, and those no ones are going to completely flood our schools and GPs'

For the record, I absolutely believe that there should incentives to rejuvenate derelict sites, infil options looked at and so on. But that won't be enough, new builds are also needed. As others have stated, we're already in a housing crisis. This is not a theoretical problem.

But there's a depressing degree of 'I'm alright jack, you can fuck off' mentality being displayed on this thread. And that's true of the country at large.

My small town is due to have 2500 houses built. They will build us a primary school. That's it. There's already a lack of infrastructure, overcrowding at the upper school and doctors. Apparently even with the new houses we won't need a larger secondary or doctors. It's Utter pants. We all know they want to build where the ground is routinely flooded. Currently it's farmland that is waterlogged. Building tiny houses and concreting is going to present a significant risk in the area I live. Nobody in the council cares. Report after report is ignored. Even reasonable requests like inserting a run off rule and green corridors / no paving over gardens for the new build has been denied. It beggars belief. I'm not a nimby, but I want a school place for my kids and not to be flooded!

As far as I know there aren't any plans for a major housing development near me - there's no space anyway - but if there was I would object. There is a severe lack of primary school places in my area, so children living near me are being taxied to schools in other towns, sometimes 10+ miles away. The council are trying to increase the intake at my DD's school which I fully support, but other parents and teachers are campaigning against it because it would take away some of the massive field. So until people stop objecting school places, I'm going to object to homes.