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 love where I live, I chose to live here and I think we are incredibly lucky to live in such a lovely place, with such a great sense of community.
DP would agree more with OP - it is selfish not to let someone else be able to live in such a great place.
BUT excessive, badly thought through development would mean that it would no longer be such a great place to live - for us... but also for the people moving here. And that would be really sad, 'we' would lose something we can never get back -something that we as country are supposed to promoting.
Like I said I know from experience of the place I grew up. It is still not a terrible area to live but it has no sense of community any more.
People don't look out for each other - check on old people in Winter, keep an eye on other people's children and be prepared to tell them off/tell their parents if they are doing some 'bad', watch out for suspicious characters . It is still not a high crime area but it does now have problems with antisocial behaviour (mainly teens). And people don't do the little things - like clear snow off the pavement outside their and older/infirm people's houses - because they no longer care about helping out their community, they don't feel a part of it.

Here we still have that sense of community -those good things still happen. A small gradual increase could be accommodated - tripling the size in less than than 2 decades - no way.
And like I said there is a glut of cheap, unwanted housing/land available nearby - the developers want to build here because it is 'nice' and they can sell at a premium - surely 'we' should be redeveloping those areas and trying to establish communities there - make those desirable', making those better - rather than ruining what 'we' have - building things up, rather than dragging everywhere down...

I think there should be as much support as possible to get people on the property ladder, however I don't think new builds should happen until all the empty properties are repaired and lived in, there's a lot of unused buildings in bad repair near me yet houses are being built on attractive countryside. I think it's fair enough to build on country side areas if there are not enough houses for everyone but not just because it's more lucrative than doing up unused places

I am impressed the thread got as far as page 3 before someone quoted the geldof science about the percentage of the UK that is actually built on.

Food does not actually grow in wait rose.

We can cope with our massive population increase, but only if we build sensibly and use every existing house that we have. That means taxing new builds, not taxing renovations, building more on brownfield land in cities, not building on flood plains, enforcing additional services and raising tax to pay for them.

We currently have a planning application for 30 new 3-4 bed "affordable" homes in our village. It is a medieval village with one road in and out that cannot be widened. It has a school that is already oversubscribed and there is no space to expand it where it is (doesn't even have a playground, kids have to use the playing field up the road). I object to that development because it's fucking crazy to bring probably 60 odd kids to a village with nowhere for them to go to school.

It was aimed at me. Why does the local council designate land to develop and then get developers to bid? Surely that would save all of the high court battles. The development in my village was blocked by the local and county councils because of concerns about amenities and flooding. The developer got planning pushed through in the high court.

My goodness Kate, that was a rather rude comment yourself! Your (sarcastic sounding) comment regarding 'telling' you it was a complex issue was directly below my comment, in which I had mentioned it was a complex issue. Easy mistake to make, I would have thought. However, thanks for putting me straight.

Probably every.single.appeal is on land flooding and amenities.
I know that at least one person on this thread is a bit to let landlord, yet they oppose new housing.
I am so tired of dealing with the hypocrisy that so many have.

Government sets targets for housing which are needed, despite people saying that there is none needed in their area, while others say that their children cannot afford to buy in the village that they grew up in.

One village local to me has stopped eight new houses being built by a social housing provider. The wealthy locals are mostly from London, some are using it for second homes at the weekend.

So eight homes that villagers children doing low income jobs could have lived in. They hired a QC, no doubt on the back of a judge living in the village.

I don't think that anyone is saying that developers don't need a very firm hand and I don't particularly like dealing with them, but there is so much self interest in the campaign groups. All the while, we are still having children and expecting them to be housed.

Yes namechange, I am afraid that your comment did rather come across as rude. I agree that I should have highlighted a name, as you say, easy mistake to make.

*buy to let landlord

Government policy encourages new builds in an attempt to improve the housing shortage in the SW. But different areas have different needs. I live in an area of the country where there are so many applications in for new estates that it amounts - in a nearby market town - to another 10% of the current population.

I clearly come from the same place as Melj upthread.

Whilst the vast majority of plans are passed, with a few low cost houses paying lip service to permission, not only is it going to overload infrastructure but completely change the character of the area. But who on earth is going to buy all these homes? The most recent pass has been for nearly 400 new homes in an area well known for flooding.

I honestly believe that some of the developers will get into financial trouble here even with the Help to Buy Scheme. For example, a nearby shipbuilding town has substantial building development with only one proposal turned down.

There is currently only one sell out estate with the others struggling. Yet more "luxury" homes are planned. Local Mews houses are priced around £250-285,000 and only one has sold in a recent development. The higher priced houses are being reduced with prices unheard of locally.

My dd has bought on the sell out site. I told her not to buy there because it is between a large shopping centre and a railway line but I was wrong, with a mix of buyers. It is a good sized home with smallish garden and drive parking. But it was top priced and largest at £150,000. Surely an indication of need within the area. This estate surprised even the estate agents.

I have gone off theme here but think it is all relative to different areas of the country with a one size fits all policy which could in some areas damage rather than encourage the housing market.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/apr/22/nimbys-winning-housing-battles?client=safari

This is my point of view (not my article). I am going off to namechange again now.

I don't expect anyone ever moves their point of view, whichever position they are coming from.

Ok, Kate. I just hope some of what has been said has allowed you to consider this from another perspective too. Local people generally aren't selfish or stupid. They are just frustrated at not being listened to at all by the people who are part of the planning system. Most of the time we are treated as pesky NIMBYs and not community members with concerns, often really valid concerns. Perhaps a change of attitude is necessary on both sides. Also, a change in the way new developments are planned and approved. It should be led by local need and not the developer.

But if there isn't a school, how can you expect to build 40 new (family sized) houses and not have problems?
There is no school in our village. Local school (that we are in catchment area for) is a few miles down country roads - national speed limit, no paths, unlit, blind bends. There is no bus route to this school. The only bus route is to nearest town where (due to population increase) all schools are full. Maybe they should add conditions to these houses that any children must be homeschooled.

i love all these WHAT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC? As if other peoples cars are more problematic than your own...

hypocrites!

Developers make some very strange decisions. My parents, before they died, spent a long time looking for sheltered accommodation to which to downsize. What they found locally had so much wrong with it (despite being brand new, and being sold off plan) that it was beyond a joke. In particular, the kitchen had standing room only and led off the sitting room. There were almost no restaurants nearby (and none on site). It was very hard to understand how these older people were going to shop and eat...

Wishforsnow
The roads are not suitable for buses. These are very very narrow country lanes with passing spaces. They did trial a bus service about 20 years ago but it caused so many problems because the bus could not fit in the passing space and was scraping the verges and hitting over hanging trees and in the next village along, again with no facilities it couldn't get through because of parked cars. It was abandoned after a couple of days. The person who thought a bus was a good idea had clearly only looked at a map and had never driven the bus route with the idea of a bus coming down a road and the chaos it caused.

There was a revue in a paper of this area and it surmised that it was a lovely place but NOT FOR THE NON CAR DRIVER. Like the bus trial the council I don't think have been down to see what the area is like. Everything appears to have been done via ordinance survey maps

one of my neighbours was so horrified about the prospect of a housing estate being built on a local field they contemplated moving to France ,
and there are a lot of disgruntled folks mouthing off about Social Housing.

Norma I don't blame them.

I think most residents around here are objecting with good grounds to the social housing section because there are no amenities and as my above post shows there isn't even transport to get to the amenites in the bigger village several miles down a load of unlit winedy unpavemented lanes. There have been at least 4 deaths from people walking in the lanes since I have been here.
The building company keep referencing a hotel and the council seem to be agreeing with them. After all it is only 1 road to cross. That one road being the 6 lanes of the M25

Dolly, what about some consideration for the hundreds of thousands who won't ever own their own home because they're priced out due to lack of supply

You're not priced out because of lack of supply. Loads (hundreds and possibly into the thousands) of houses have been built where I am since I moved here and prices have increased, not decreased. House prices are high. It is not the case that if you build new houses, the prices drop. It doesn't happen like that.

myfavourite, first law of supply and demand

Rising average prices
The long run increase in house prices is caused by demand for housing outstripping supply. It has been estimated* that 175,000 more homes must be built each year to meet the future level of demand for housing. As previously noted, only around 5% of property transactions involve new properties.

*Source: Cambridge University

The 'affordable' houses on the new estates near us are overpriced. It is more 'affordable' to buy from existing housing stock.

At a national level, a significant increase in supply will bring down prices eventually. Your little microcosm is not a helpful reference point.

So people don't have a right to complain if 5000 expensive poorly made and designed houses are put up without the proper infrastructure being put in place?

I don't understand why in London that it is acceptable to build expensive flats in tower blocks and then refuse to sell them to people who live in this country and want to live in them. We shouldn't be building homes to stay empty.