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?

there is a huge estate near me on a brownfield site.
mixed bag of properties but the bus service is woeful, the shops, pubs, schools doctors decidedly lacking.
yet it was a perfect site to build on

and of course objections ad infanitum.

of course those who object are selfish Nimbies.

It depends why they object. If those objections are well thought through (and indeed may be because the developer wants to squeeze yet more executive homes on greenbelt.. not including any affordable homes/building yet more box apartments with little in keeping with the surrounding area, I can see why they would object). Objecting to sustainable development which enhances the area, supports need (and where the infrastructure can support... I agree completely with)

Building should enhance an area and also reflect need

If I tried to lease my home to the council for council tenants I would be told it is not suitable because of lack of amenities. I tried to get permission to pull my house down and build the exact building that the building company have put forward. I was told the design was not in keeping with the area but the building company have been given the green light. I hope the people who are moving into the social housing are car drivers and are able to run a car otherwise more deaths will occur

Our village is still, just, surrounded by green fields. There has been quite a lot of building (on what was farm land) since the 1950s but now we're full. The local residents association is adamant there will be no more and are very well organised. I agree with them. The school is full to overflowing, the drains struggle when it rains and the roads are narrow and poorly maintained.

I live at the top of a hill and look out over a small valley between us and the suburbs of a town. I'm delighted to say the valley floods constantly so my view will never be ruined or the value of our house diminished be cheap jerry built boxes.

There is no social housing here but a mile or so up the road is a former council estate consisting of well built houses of decent size with nice gardens. Slowly these are being bought up by their tenants as they are preferable to the boxes being thrown up elsewhere.

It's a shame, council houses shouldn't have been allowed to be bought, they were built to house people who can't afford to buy. This needs to be stopped.

Yep, most (not all) of them are cunts. "My views, my precious bushes, my roads, my doctor...". Every fucking time a housing association sniffs round a site here, the middle class locals get the vapours. They should try worrying about an abandoned field when they're in temporary accommodation without a pot to piss in.

Tell me you'd be happy that the value of your home would be devalued, your sewers over flow, the school have oversized classes and for there to be nowhere to park unless you have a drive, Blurry, and I won't believe you.

The thing about nimbyism (of which there is such a depressing amount on this thread). Is that there's always a reason why it shouldn't be you.

Bear in mind, everyone can come up with a reason. Every home owner in this country probably. But we have a huge shortage, we have a crisis, we have unacceptable levels of homelessness, we have the sad fact of hundreds of thousands not being able to afford a home and coming to terms with a lifetime of renting.

If not near your house, then who's house? As I've said, EVERYONE can come up with a reason why it shouldn't be them.

And before its raised, I totally agree brownfield sites need to be looked at, but they won't be enough, they'll probably take longer to build as they're less straight forward. And, to repeat, we're in the middle of a housing crisis.

Up thread someone made the excellent point that once upon a time, someone didn't want your house built, for all the 'excellent' reasons that have have been discussed ad nauseum on this thread.

Give you are lucky enough to own your on home, with all the security and financial gains that brings with it, do the decent thing and don't kick the ladder over for those coming after.

you don't own the road, the school, the field, the sewers, the land.

Why is your shit/car/kid welcome and anyone else's not? NONE OF THE HOUSES THERE WERE THERE FOR TIME IMMEMORIAL.

selfish, nimbyism (doesn't affect me personally by the way)
There's a village down the road all up in arms about house prices/social housing being built, they're dressing it up as school places and infrastructure, but it's pure and simple entitled nimbyism.

I think we can all agree that some places are better able to cope with more houses than others

I have had to work from home today as I simply couldn't leave the village- all the roads around were gridlocked till nearly 10. This is unusual but not at all exceptional. And yet they want to build hundreds more houses and no infrastructure improvements. I would actually welcome the houses if the road infrastructure could take them!

throwing, traffic is your 'reason', fine, but in other ways, you may be much better equipped than other areas. There may be more places in local schools, more qualified G.P.s in the area, etc, etc.

Really, what you point to is an even bigger issue. We are far too car dependent as a society and as our population grows, this becomes more and more untenable. What have you or others in the area done to look into car pooling, park and ride schemes and so forth?

Three miles from here was a pit, one of the ones closed in Thatcher's day. The ground was eventually used for housing, a massive estate with a new school and plenty of open spaces. Not one single social house, though, all private. There is plenty of land available for housing but the will to build social housing isn't there. Councils can't afford it and the government won't.

I think you're BU. Do you know why the 3 applications in your area were refused? It's easy to check, it will be on the Council's website. Maybe do that before calling the people who have campaigned against them selfish??

IME so called Nimby's do not have the power to prevent development - I suspect the applications you refer would have been refused even if there had been no local resident objections. Government policy and the pressure put on local authorities mean that permission tends to be granted unless there are sound planning reasons why a site is unsuitable that cannot be overcome.

I work on the other side but I actually have a lot of time for most people who are involved with campaigning in relation to new development. Of course you always get a few who are against any change whatsoever but I think most people are reasonable- as someone else said social housing developments promoted by Housing Associations are often supported by a community. Once countryside and agricultural land has disappeared it is pretty much gone forever, homes need to be good quality and with access to infrastructure, new developments shouldn't unacceptably harm what is already there. "NIMBYs" can be invaluable in holding hard pressed local authorities and developers who just want to make money to account.

was the road from the village built by you for your car specifically? If not then YABU to cite traffic, why don't you move somewhere more convenient to work to prevent this happening?

I disagree, look at the guardian article linked. Interesting statistics that you can prevent development if you are wealthy and motivated.
It absolutely is true in some cases with many groups hiring barristers and in some cases QCs.

Personally I hate new build estates. Little to no parking for a 4 bed with potentially 4 people of driving age. You only need to read all the parking threads. Often built out of town with no transportation so people forced to drive everywhere. Crowded with postage stamp gardens and stadium like feel when you're in the garden - sometimes 4/5 houses overlooking you.

Schools with 36 pupils in a class (I taught that class with only enough tables for 32)

Yes the view does get spoilt but why can't people complain? Surely if that's why they bought that specific property and now that's gone surely they are within their right to be annoyed - as it is you cannot raise an objection based on losing a view or devaluation of property.

Penshurst case, six houses for low income workers refused.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10719106/QC-quotes-Sir-Philip-Sidney-to-save-Elizabethan-poets-village.html

Exactly doowappydoo- once the countryside or farmland is gone. That's it, there is no second chance.

We have had 1000 new houses built in 18 months. No new schools or doctors surgeries, therefore many objected. Why wouldn't they object?

They are objecting because they think that they should have a home, Road and GP access but others shouldn't.

The funding for this is under pressure from central government, its stretched everywhere. Residents just don't want it stretched in their area, it's alright somewhere else though.

Personally I hate new build estates. Little to no parking for a 4 bed with potentially 4 people of driving age. You only need to read all the parking threads. Often built out of town with no transportation so people forced to drive everywhere. Crowded with postage stamp gardens and stadium like feel when you're in the garden - sometimes 4/5 houses overlooking you.

This is another bizarre bit of logic used all over this thread. If you don't like new build estates and wouldn't live on one, that's absolutely fine: don't buy a house there. I probably wouldn't either. But people do want them - certainly around me, all the new build property goes pretty fast (except the one-bed flats, of which there is a genuine oversupply). Why on earth do you think no one should be able to buy something you don't like? I think 4x4 cars that aren't in actual agricultural use are ugly, tacky, selfish and horrible for the environment. I don't campaign for them not to be sold, though, because I've noticed I'm not the only person on the planet so I don't have some sort of veto over what everyone else buys.

Just near me they have built a 400 unit social housing estate. It's lovely, and everyone is really pleased because house prices are rising at a rate that means that local people are being priced out of the market. The local council is no longer entertaining planning permission for house conversions into flats for the buy to let market, which means that families are returning to the area that used to have quite a transient population. We have also been lucky enough to have had a street of social housing that had been abandoned refurbished and is now occupied by families. It's making a huge difference to the area and the level of community people feel.

As part of this regeneration, developers are only being able to get planning permission for local brownfield sites and urban wasteland and only for schemes that have affordable housing that is actually affordable for local people.

It can be done if there is a will to do it.

I don't live in a village. I live in a town that's a lot a bit of a dump. I haven't got a nice view of green fields, hills, or lakes or herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically from any of my windows.

They're throwing up housing estates like nobody's business everywhere I look. I haven't got a problem with lots of new people moving into the area, our businesses and town centre could do with a boost. However, as many others have said, the town's schools are already overcrowded, and GP waiting times are off the scale. It took me 2 hours to get to the nearest city one morning by car, a journey which normally takes 40 mins.

Believe me, this isn't NIMBYism. The estates (although not to my taste) normally look a damn sight better than what was there before. But if the supporting infrastructure is not improved to make way for all these extra people, everyone suffers, not just those who lived there since time immemorial.

Personally I hate new build estates. Little to no parking for a 4 bed with potentially 4 people of driving age. You only need to read all the parking threads. Often built out of town with no transportation so people forced to drive everywhere. Crowded with postage stamp gardens and stadium like feel when you're in the garden - sometimes 4/5 houses overlooking you.

Also, to add to Margaret's point, I'm sure that most would agree that in a perfect world, they'd love to live in an enormous detached house, with a huge garden, conveniently located for all amenities. Newsflash, most people don't have the means for this (and actually, the problems with overcrowding and erosion of natural environments would be much worse if everyone had a house like this).

There are people chomping at the bit for houses you describe, postage stamp gardens and everything. Why's that? Because it's so difficult to get on the ladder these days, people are damn grateful for a roof of their own over their heads and the security that delivers, no matter how ugly and pokey.

The nimby's couldn't give a shit about these people, clearly. Let them rent all their lives, who the fuck cares?

Personally I hate new build estates. Little to no parking for a 4 bed with potentially 4 people of driving age

But if you as an individual want to build a 4 bed house the same council that would come down on you like a ton of bricks and say no to you because you haven't got enough space to park 2/3 cars is the same council who are waving through planning from large building companies who want to squeeze extra housing on the site instead of putting in parking for more than one car.

In my own instance the area doesn't flood and I cant talk about a strain on local amenities because we don't have any.