That people object to council plans for selfish and uninformed reasons

[Bamboozle123]

I live in a village which has doubled in size over the last 5 years (still pretty small tbh).

It is well located, 5 miles from a major town and has potentially good public transport links but with really low service levels (hourly trains, no buses on a Sunday sort of thing). There are few amenities here - no petrol garage, supermarket, pub, cafe but does have a few corner shops and a primary school. Loads and loads of countryside and good walking.

The council plans to create loads more houses along the main road here, probably doubling the village in size again.

I'm really surprised that so many locals are objecting for what seem to be really weak reasons - e.g. don't support compulsory purchase of farmland, the village is "already too big".

Perhaps they are just going through the change curve but I don't see how they can't see the benefits in improving the amenities and services, providing more affordable housing in an area that desperately needs it, whilst still retaining almost all the countryside.

So AIBU to think they are being blinkered / selfish and actually this is a scheme for the greater good whilst also benefitting us residents.

They are not unreasonable to be unhappy at the village doubling in size! That's a lot more strain on the amenities.
I'm objecting to the large number of planned new houses for our village, the village is big enough already (much bigger and I'm not sure how much longer it could be called a village!) the school is at capacity, as it stands the pre school and local child minders are full, the doctors is over capacity, the dentist not a chance in hell of getting in there, they are planning on ripping out established trees and hedgerows to build on, not proposing any changes to the current road to help with increased traffic/builder's traffic.
I'd support a smaller development but our planned one is too big, maybe people in your village feel the same

People often pay a real premium to live in a nice house in a small rural village. When a huge sprawling new build estate blocks your views, stops you being so rural and the farm shop goes because the farm became ab estate, the houses there are devalued and lots of lifestyles are spoilt. We need to have a real overhaul of how we think about housing.

We need farmland, we need countryside
We can't just build and build. We are a relatively small Island.

Think of the house prices!

Genuine question OP, if you purchased a house that you worked and saved years for, and it was your perfect house for whatever reason ... quiet village, sea view, backed onto a reserve, next to woodland etc whatever does it for you, .... and a couple of years later a huge housing development went up next to you blocking said view or whatever it was that you moved for? You wouldn't care at all?? 🤔

I wouldn't buy for the views it if the land could be built on , someone elses view was probably blocked when said house was built. I bet they complained as well.

YANBU we have the same thing in our village. People not wanting younger generations to have what they have got.

Our village has grown rapidly in the 10 years we’ve been here. But as ever NOT with affordable homes or amenities. We live at the ‘top’ of the village (1 mile to the ‘bottom’) and the last estate (all very large executive homes) was built at the bottom. The top is a mixture of private and LA homes - from 2 bed Maisonettes to older 3&4 bed houses, the bottom is all 4&5 bed private homes.

The village primary is way oversubscribed. Guess which children don’t get to go there now?

There is a consultation shortly for another estate being built, again without any amenities. You can bet your arse I’m objecting.

True.

I don't want anyone to have a 1.5 hour commute to work for a 20 minute journey, with the prospect of another 4000 homes being built and absolutely no geographical possibility of the roads being able to absorb additional traffic.

I don't want anyone to have to live in a small, isolated development of houses on the side of a major trunk road with nowhere for their kids to play safely, no nearby amenities and that overly busy road being their only way in or out to any shop, school etc.

Nor do I want anyone to find themselves living surrounded by flood water, because the new estate they live on was built on land called the water meadows, until the developers called it The Green.

Sometimes building on green space is ludicrous because of the geography of an area. Ignoring that led to all of the above today where I live.

And we are told we are being mean when we carry on objecting.

Raise your bar...

I'm really surprised that so many locals are objecting for what seem to be really weak reasons

If you're surprised you live in a nation of NIMBYs you haven't been paying attention.

And it doesn't just affect villages and new houses - I live in a very built up area that is aiming to revamp its riverside to be much more pedestrianised and pleasant. It would mean about 40 short-term car park spaces are removed, which is apparently unthinkable to a few very loud residents for reasons I doubt even they know.

Some people will moan about any change whatsover.

Totally wrong. As the OP said, it's an ageing population. You either solve that with better economic conditions for young people to have families, or more immigration. Can't have neither.

People always say this, and it conjurs up an image of lush forests and natural beauty instead of what England mostly is: plain, unused fields. In that regard the natural degredation has been done already - nature was a lot happier when that field was a forest.

It's not just the countryside, i live in london where a green space is going to be used for a large amount of homes. As it's london schools/etc are already at breaking point. My own estate is "new" (ish) so i cant really complain, people need places to live but equally building on flood plains is a recipe for disaster

With an ageing population we could build some bigger houses to allow multi generational living.

It’s the fact that planning woefully underestimates school places.
In our area they build 3 and 4 bed detached the draw is the outstanding primary and outstanding secondary schools (the house builders put it in their brochures)
99% of houses sold will have at least 1 school aged child that’s why they want to live here.
When I checked regs it was something like the criteria assumed 30 children (primary and secondary) per 100 houses.
Across all building that might be true eg city centre flats marketed at young professionals probably have few children.
But it’s not rocket science that 100 detached houses here is probably another 100/150 children wanting school places and the criteria says 30 enough. And that’s not 30 locally - I recall it was place within several miles. Rurally that could be hour or more round trip to some remote village school as closest schools are full.
You can see what is going to happen.
Then they realise and add more capacity but takes yrs, meanwhile traffic etc as parents have to drive kids to remote schools, 45 in junior classes etc. My DDs old school went up 30 capacity 5 yrs ago and is up 30 again from next year.

Ah, it's the old 'we desperately need more housing in this country, but not where I live' argument that has raged for years and years.

Noone has a right that the house/area they bought in has to remain the same, but unfortunately there's so many people with that kind of attitude that I makes significant development difficult in some areas. I've seen it in replies here already around 'what if they moved to live in a quiet area' which as above, is a typical insular response as nothing is stopping them moving again. Areas change, needs change - people need to get over it.

*There are areas where genuine concerns re infrastructure and school capacity etc exist but the OP clearly wasn't referring to these.

Op mentions lots of infrastructure issues though. Only hourly trains, no buses on Sunday, one school, no petrol garage, no supermarket, no pub, no cafe.

Straightaway you can see more building there will mean lots more traffic on road. People can only live there with a car.
Then they will approve houses with 1 parking space when nearly everyone has 2 to live there and it’s no wonder why parking and traffic is a nightmare in village.

Current system seems to be everyone locally can see it will be a mess infrastructure wise, still goes ahead. It is indeed a mess, then scramble to put something sticking plaster like in place eg portacabin at local school.

In our village they've had 3 local devlopments. Two of them managed to be buit on the edge of the village with no social housing, because the social housing need could be pooled together and placed on a brownfield site in the middle of the village. Means that the owners of the 4 bed executive homes don't have poor people living next door. The social / shared ownership housing is now being built, after the other developments have been finished, immediately next to the railway line. Which will be nice. There are no ammenities - primary schools are at capacity, no secondary school, bus service has just been classed as unviable and cancelled, we can't get a dentist to run the practice and the GPs have no spaces.

Interestingly, the social housing's location puts these homes right next to the better one of the primary schools, so they're bang in catchment. The two big executive developments are on the edge of the village, so will be lucky to get any place in village schools because of the number of children from the social housing. What goes around and all that....

Of course people will object to a huge change to their community!

Of course people will object to compulsory land purchases.

i grew up in a village like this. Don’t you see that your kids will never be able to settle down, have kids themselves, feel secure and happy etc because there are no houses that they can afford?

You are so unbelievably selfish. Just listen to yourself. You are just like the hopeless nimby whingers in the village I grew up in. Cannot abide sacrificing anything for the good of the young people of today.

I have a big house I am happy with in a nice location, but if the local council wanted to knock down the house oppose and whack up a high rise I’d be fine with that, because people have a right to have a stable home life.

Problem is infrastructure. No matter how much we beg the council never do it.

where we just moved from had two big rather huge actually housing estates added and another one being built with another proposed adding well over 1,000 houses total. Guess what not a single school or doctors or dentist or even a bus stop. The road can’t actually cope by 8:30am is backed up and again around 3pm as it all leads off a parkway too, so getting into those smaller estates and what used to be almost a village esk school is now terrible.

But alas we apparently desperately need 4/5 bed tiny executive houses at over 400k each with 1 parking space and a postage stamp garden for people who then can’t have a local school or doctor or even corner shop.

@Sorefootouch I said i would support a smaller development, as would most others in the village, the initial proposal was fine but it keeps growing. If the school, doctors etc can't accommodate all the new people what's supposed to happen then?? These aren't affordable houses that are being built either.
And you know nothing or my situation so can't comment on what my child's life will be like when she's an adult.
Where i live what the council need to stop doing is handing every single development over to student housing and then maybe there would be a lot more affordable family homes. Maybe stop expanding the universities that then swallow up the local houses as student lets.

Agree they are not "affordable" in the general sense of the word. A 10% discount on a high price is still high. Dc will struggle to ever afford housing in our area, to buy or rent.

I'm not sure your post or my previous ones have actually come through. Or maybe we posted in invisible ink.

Just as with planning, local and central government, some posters here are just pretending they haven't read our objections. Because then they'd need to acknowledge that the NIMBY bollocks doesn't always apply and the "where will our kids live?" is currently being answered with "often in places that are unsuitable for development"