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?

I know Hodd, some of it is far worse than that. The creator of the group lives in a house that was built on an apple orchard many years ago, the majority of supporters live on an estate that is about 15 years old, built on sold off farm land.
Mostly moved out of London due to high house prices.

OP you have no real idea.

Invariably any new builds are not 'affordable' in the true sense of the word...to me affordable means normal wage can pay. I don't know many earning much above NLW ..and that means social housing as on a normal wage that's all that you can afford ..and frothers get their judgy pants in a twist over that and government policy needs a major overhaul to sort the housing issue.

Just to be clear - as I've been one of the most vocal anti-NIMBYs on this thread - I live (and own a house) in a south-east commuter town which is currently having huge amounts of new housing built. I do worry about both my house price and local resources, but I then try and be a bit less selfish, and also remember that I'm sure some people didn't want my (1960s) house built, but I'm glad it, and the rest of the estate, is there now.

Just to be clear, I also live in the South East within the commuter belt. I also live in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I am NOT opposed to development to help the greater good. I am opposed to destroying woodlands and green spaces when there are brownfield sites that could be developed. The office building on the business park where DH works has SAT EMPTY FOR 10 YEARS.

PS- OP so you are a tenant and you want , for yourself, to own a house. And that is the only reason you want new homes built - so YOU can own one cheaply.

Very altruistic.

YANBU

The thing is the government are the ones who have taken away the right for councils to ask for contributions for smaller developments, who are insisting that councils approve more homes etc therefore councils have to approve larger developments to get any infrastructure benefits from a scheme....

I have met a large number of NIMBYs in my line of work and they all say we need more homes but not here. I saw one objection that suggested people move up north because there are lots of empty homes there because obviously that's how life works.

Yabu.

My DF became very mentally unwell when a new development was built right next door to their house.

You don't know people's personal reasons for objecting and have no idea how much that new development impacted massively in such a negative way. You also have no idea how much it impacted on my parents health.

In fact the whole thing was so fucking hideous that they sold their beautiful home and moved away. It was a heartbreaking decision but the new development affected them in so many ways both physically, emotionally and environmentally that they had no choice but to leave their home after 50 years of living there.

That is not what I call selfish.

OP- your landlord, and others like him, are the reason you don't own a house. Using property as investment keeps houses out of circulation or massively over priced. Most affordable property is tied up as buy to let. My sisters old her flat recently, nice area. It was the cheapest property in that area by far and was snapped up after 12hrs on the market by an property investment group to use as rental. It was the last flat in her block not a rental property. The same company does the same thing to all cheaper properties in that area.

Building more house in my village won't change that.

BonnieF, I wonder if we live in the same village? Were you about to have the bus service withdrawn until a last-minute reprieve?

Either way, I agree absolutely about brownfield sites in Leicester, not to mention acres of glorious empty Victorian warehouses and factories in the city centre, which would be gorgeous for families if sympathetically converted, and to where the vast majority commute from the villages anyway...

Well, the new developments around here go up a plenty. Adjacent to areas of natural beauty, further than I'd care to walk to the station. All gated, all with a bathroom per bedroom, all with a price tag in excess of £1,650,000.

We're over the moon - pushing our bigger, characterful, better located gaff up and up and it's a seven minute walk from the zone six station

Can't criticise. Sorry OP.

Fed up of seeing vast swathes of farmland and countryside eaten up by concrete and ugly, faceless properties with no thought about flooding, road congestion and therefore pollution.

We then import more (as less farmland) then complain about rising food prices.

More flooding is inevitable and we are complaining that the environment agency doesn't do enough when in reality many councils go against their recommendations as developers make big promises....

I'd Scrap the green belt,its anachronistic and inhibits new houseuilding development

Generally, I'm for planning on land that isn't being used eg deserted buildings.

However, as a Londoner, I concerned about building more properties in an already densely populated area. There is a plot of land on my road, set slightly back and it used to have two largish houses on it and was a decent size plot. Permission has been granted for 6 new houses. On the plans, the rooms look tiny. Personally, I would have preferred to have maybe 3 better designed houses with lots of space.

I have objected to new homes being built locally. We are also looking at our local population tripling in the next 10-15 yrs. I love living here because there is a really strong sense of community. I know that will be lost if the mass building goes ahead.
I grew up in a village (which is now a small town) -a similar increase happened over 20 yrs and that's exactly what happened. You really need a more gradual increase to allow people to integrate.

My biggest objection is the housing is 'developer led' - so not what we actually need in this area.
We need affordable starter homes (and ear marked for local children) but probably more importantly bungalows for older people. We have very little property around here that allow people to downsize pre-going into sheltered accommodation/a home -they have to move miles away and they don't want to leave their community. On one local road we have 40-50% of big family sized houses lived in by a single older person - and I know some want to move but there is no where for them to go.
We are a desirable area to live in and that means that family homes are snapped up at inflated prices and local children can't afford to live here - and we do have the odd holiday home too.
Looking at one lot of plans the affordable housing was not going to be built here -they were going to give the council money to build them somewhere else.

There is limited employment here - most people commute to work.
We live within commuting distance of two cities - the closest has lots of brown field sites that could be used for building - and already has lots of cheap housing - mostly ex council - in less desirable areas....the other is further away ( a train commute really) and is expensive to buy in.
All the infill houses have been 5 bedroom with ensuites - 'executive' homes -that sell at a premium. It looks like at least a percentage of the new homes will be those kind of houses and will appeal to people who work in the expensive city - better for the developers.
In fact, as a sweetener, we are being told they will reopen the local train station that was closed years ago if we get the new housing as there will be the demand. And that will mean there won't be increased pressure on the roads - -people will walk or cycle to the station.... and we will have more buses. The places earmarked for housing are a mile+ away from the where the station is ...I really can't see lots of people walking.
The roads can't really be improved - they are narrow in places - originally built for horse and carriage use - single decker buses cause chaos. Assuming 2 people per new house -that would need an extra 25 double decker buses..full.
There has been talk about building a new road which would cut through and join up with an A road to take pressure off the local roads as a solution -but the only way to do that would be to have the access road going past the primary school entrance or through an estate...

And the primary schools, preschool groups are currently overflowing...and the buildings aren't big enough to have extra classes - they will have to extend them - probably onto the playing fields and likely children will end up in temporary classrooms (portacabins)...it is so tight without the new houses that looks like it might happen anyway.
And the nearest secondary is over 10 miles away - it currently isn't as full (although that will change as the current primary children move up) and also there are plans for lots of mass house building in lots of the surrounding villages/towns too - which all currently feed into that school ...
I have no objection to building the housing we need locally, but in order for it to be that it can't be developer led. And it has to be gradual and well thought out. And the infrastructure has to be in place.... and at the moment that doesn't seem to be the case....

House building is developer led because it's a commercial enterprise,for profit. Thing is no one wants their area to expand,grow.want it to be so place else. Local authority and developers need to cohesively plan house building and the associated impact on schools,GP etc. However building shouldn't be inhibited because of nimby's

I live on a sweet little road that was vehemently opposed by people around it before it was built. This was quite a few years ago, I am the third person to own my house. The people who objected still live here and are now happy to ask us all for contributions to their residents association, park their cars here and so on. They have also asked me and others in the road to join in their objections to more developments. We have all said no! So a new development that is the work of the devil can quickly become part of the local landscape. The UK is only 14% developed, we have plenty of room, we just need to make different decisions about how to use it.

No, YANBU. They're incredibly selfish and unreasonable. All they care about is their own wealth.

i wonder if those town dwellers / inner city dwellers have a differing view on overcrowding than rural folk?

that is the only reason you want new homes built - so YOU can own one cheaply

Bollocks.
I admit there is self-interest in my argument, I am sure I am as self-interested as the next person. But it is not just myself I am concerned about. In my work I deal with people suffering from homelessness and inadequate housing every day. There are tens of thousands of people in this country in a really shit situation. I care about them too.

I agree that there are other ways of increasing the housing stock, and all of the alternative policies suggested here are valid and valuable, and many should be implemented.

I totally agree that properties should not be built on land with special scientific, environmental or historic significance. Some of the examples others have highlighted here are heartbreaking. Councils should rightfully reject these proposals.

But often the land has no special features at all. It is common-or-garden open space with nothing to recommend it in the way of natural beauty or biodiversity or wildlife habitat. Those objecting to building on greenfield sites: surely we inevitably must? With an increasing population and demographic changes leading to smaller households, it is simply not feasible to build only on land we have built on before. If that land is nothing particularly special, then why object so vociferously?

you cannot expect to buy a house in your dream location.

According to research done by the Guardian in 2014, 95% of England and Wales is unaffordable to people earning my salary. So these are not dream locations! These are simply places where people live; where our communities are, where we work, where our children go to school, where we have friends and family and support networks. I would literally have to move hundreds of miles away to find an area I could afford to buy in.

I put in a complaint about a housing development proposed to go up on a road 2 mins walk from my house. My objection was that the planners want to put 300 houses off a winding single track road without improving it! I'm not sure how they plan to get construction lorries in... As the council have pointed out, they don't have any way for heavy traffic to access the site. I think small family houses should be built. But all that gets built is 4 bed townhouses with no garden that open onto the the road as dense housing makes more money,
oh and a small area of flats in the crappiest part of the development to meet the legal requirement for affordable housing. Councils need to build houses to meet the genuine need. Sadly that wont happen.

Most of the problem around here as well is about types of housing. Lots of older people stuck in big family houses. Families are moving into small bungalows and knocking them down to rebuild or extend because they cant afford the family houses they are supposed to buy. Answer to everything... We need more genuine social housing. Councils need to build what we need rather than what developers want to build. Older people need help to move, and just more help in general.

Perhaps it is not feasible to only build on brownfield land, but it might be nice to try to build on that first. I live in a downmarket suburban/urban area, so have absolutely no stake in this, but can't help noticing how large areas of my town remain undeveloped while builders are rushing to develop the green belt- no doubt because it is more profitable.

Most people seriously over estimate how much of the UK is built on - it's barely 11%. Including in this is around 25 million dwellings and they barely cover 2% of the land. More of Britain is covered in golf courses than houses. A quick look at any aerial view of pretty much anywhere in the UK will show how much space there - and there is loads.

Every house that exists in built on land where there was not a house. So, I can't get worked up about new houses being built. Everyone has to live somewhere.

Funnily enough ....I live in Scotland -we don't really have green belt.
We have an area on the outskirts of the village that was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty ....or a national scenic area (NSA) as they are here now...it is a stunning view, truly beautiful.
A developer has been trying to build on it for years - it went to court and supposedly was protected for ever. But a few years ago it was reclassified, is no longer a NSA ...and is now in the longer term plan as designated for housing. The new housing will have lovely views, can be sold at a premium - just a pity no-one else will be able to appreciate it any more. There are other areas that could be developed - and I think should be before that - but housing there won't be worth that bit extra...so the developer isn't interested.

Depends on the development. I mean if the development ruins what it is that you liked about that area then its not really good to build there. A lot of these developments seem to want to build several hundred (small) houses without developing things like shops and schools to go with them, making them non sort of places. Then theres the congestion as others have stated. I don't see the problem with adding say 20 houses to a small village, but 200 changes it considerably.