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?

And there you have it.

Oliversarmy you may get an improved bus service in the area or a shop opening on the estate.

It's refreshing to have such honesty Nathan, because I think you speak the truth.

Kate That's an over simplification and you know it. Twenty people come on and give valid reasons and worries. Mailing valid points about profit vs community. And you ignore then. But one person on about a view is the truth. Talk about confirmation bias.

making obvs

It depends on what's in the Planning Application.
There are loads of houses being built in our area (small riverside town 70 miles from London). Farmland with lovely views is being used to cram in very expensive new homes, way beyond the means of the average first time buyer.
I don't understand how developers can get away with not including "Affordable Housing" as I thought this was where the main shortage was.

We do not need as much new housing as is proposed, derelict and aging properties should be revamped as a first option, which has less impact on existing infrastructure. Developers are generally in the business to make a profit and do not improve or extend infrastructure to cope with an influx of new people. The people who pass the developers plans usually have little knowledge of or interest in the area and the realistic impact of the increase in housing. Our green areas are disappearing rapidly.

In my opinion NIMBYism accounts for a small proportion of protests.

Nanny I work in this field, I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do and I am not a developer.

It's local councillors who pass the plans, if on appeal it's by an inspector who won't be local.

What do people suggest? Brownfield sites are more expensive to develop, of course there is profit involved.
The local councils can't afford to build houses, nationally about 200 were built. So where do you propose the money comes from?

Kate and do these local councillors actually live in the area which will have decreased access to amenities because of increased population density, or are they in the more affluent areas of the locality?

Problem with developing derelict properties is that it's often difficult to recoup the costs. Where I live there are lots of old mills. Many have been turned into luxury flats. They are stunning with gorgeous features. However to make any profits the developers have to raise the price so locals are priced out... HOWEVER, and it's a big one... Anyone who could afford them would be mental to spend that amount of money on a flat in the areas they are. You would have to pay me to live in the areas some of them are situated. So they stay empty for ages. The developers even leased a load to the council to use as emergency housing.

yanbu.
nimbies the protestors

all No school,No doctors, No road,
basically they dont want to lose their view.

Yes, mostly they do namechange. They usually get a lot of personal abuse for it too.

Kate working in the field means you are even less likely to understand our concerns. You are obviously coming at this from the developer's point of view. Just because people protest changes to their communities doesn't make them selfish. Should we all just roll over and allow developers to rampantly profiteers in our communities. This is a complex issue. Different in each area. You are trying to tar ever objector with the same brush.

As I said previously, access to GP, schooling etc is generally a central government funding issue, it's a countrywide problem. Everyone thinks that their area should be protected more than the next.

I'm also on the fence with this one. We are not on the housing ladder and have zero chance of ever getting on it. We've moved away from the area I'm from because it's too expensive to rent anywhere decent. I would like to see more help for first time buyers and I see that more houses need to be built.

However, the area I am from has been ruined by overdevelopment. Houses have been built on every bit of space. The schools cannot cope, the doctors cannot cope, the traffic is awful all the time, petty crime has increased and there is no where to park if you want to visit somewhere for more than two hours or use the train station (those living on the outskirts of the town are a good couple of miles walk from the station).

The problem is bad planning. The go ahead is given for houses to be built but no one seems to think of the pressures they will put on the area.

I do feel very strongly that regeneration of areas should be taken more seriously. Derelict properties do not need to become luxury developments, although this seems common. I assume it is so that the end price can be hiked up.
As with many of today's issues (eg. NHS run into the ground) I don't have the answers as the issues are extremely complex and I am not paid big bucks to provide these answers.

Nanny I suggest you re read my post where I stated that I was not in any way connected with developers. Unfortunately that's a lazy argument targeted at anyone who suggests that people are selfish about their own communities (which is only human nature).
Thank you for telling me that it's a complex area, what do I know with twenty years doing SHMAs?

Kate Yes it is. So don't you agree that local councils should be able to block developments in areas without access or amenities? Especially if they don't have the money to provide that infrastructure.

I'm responding to your post to Nathan where your implication is that the truth of it is that people don't want their view spoilt. I know nothing of your experience just as you know nothing about my life, community or experience. I can only base it on what you've actually said. Which so far is pretty much to pigeon hole and stereotype people who object to developments.

Well if you know as much as you claim about the complexities, you would know about the appeal process?
Some do get blocked, it costs a lot of money, QCs involved and planning barristers.

What do you propose given that there has to be negotiation and profit involved? Because thee is no money for councils to build (and I can imagine the uproar if they did start building new council estates in naice areas).

If that was directed at me Kate you can stop with your sarcasm. I was saying it was a complex issue because those of us who are not directly involved in a work capacity are unlikely to know all the influencing factors, therefore I do not feel I have any solutions as I am not fully informed.

They are probably building loads of houses at the back of my house on greenbelt land in the next year or two.

What I don't understand, is why they think this will help. Where I live, it is expensive, all large detached 3/4 bed houses, inhabited almost exclusively by single OAPs. We are the only family on our road. I'm sure plenty of families would love to live here, but can't afford it. We only could because we inherited - despite both having good jobs etc.

Yet they want to build several hundred of more of the same, that families will still not be able to afford?! Why? Why will that help? I live on the outskirts of a city where a tiny two bed semi in the cheapest area costs around 300k. How will building hundreds more big detached houses in an expensive village help families? It makes no sense.

It wasn't namechange so you can stop with your rudeness.

Today 09:45 NannyOggsKnickers

Nanny This is a complex issue. Different in each area. You are trying to tar ever objector with the same brush.