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.

Developers try to screw councils down to provide as little mitigation funding as they possible can, maximise the amount of units they can deliver, and employ consultants to downplay the impact of their development on existing infrastructure. Ultimately the majority of house builders are private businesses aiming to make a profit.

Councils try to condition developers to deliver amenities, but often the developers will argue this should only be done once they've built a certain number of units. Sometimes once they've got to that number of units, they stop building. Most developers I've had any involvement will do everything they can to reduce the extent of the mitigation funding they give to councils. If this gets to legal proceeding, the developers can generally afford better legal representation than the councils. It's not a fun game to be in to be honest...

This is pretty much exactly what happens where I live. Plus on the rare occasions that mitigation payments for (e.g.) road improvements are made, they get swallowed up by the county council and no improvements are actually made. Sure, there are plenty of objections along the lines of "we don't want that there 'ere" but most concern lack of infrastructure.

Same thing here. The dishonesty is part of the process.

Infrastructure can be a bit of a red herring imo. The reality is, these new houses don't create any more need for schools, gps, buses, parking etc. It just shifts the problem to a new area. Even traffic issues to some extent are just being moved around.
I'm sure if you live in a nice place you don't want it to change, but that's not possible with a growing population.

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

Amazed that you are so dismissive of residents of a small village perfectly reasonable concerns and objections to having their area DOUBLE in size. .

That doesn’t work either though really if I moved to Sheffield in a brand new build Sheffield now has an extra five people.

No good Dorset maybe having five spaces as I’m not there. We would need a gp, a school etc in Sheffield.

Most of those houses on this executive estates are not people finally managing to move out of their parents or out of hostels or from smaller overcrowded properties it’s people moving to “cheaper” or greener areas. The local population still often stuck just where they were but now with more demand on infrastructure.

Same argument people have with where will be place Ukrainian people who where let to stay in spare rooms, where will we house the asylum seekers ect building more houses without everything else doesn’t work properly. Everyone bleats on well it’s not their fault the government need to build the infrastructure yet now people try and claim it doesn’t really need to be built.

I live in a large city now with a school on my doorstep but it’s clearly for anyone this stuff needs building when your adding 200- 500 plus homes.

Where I used to live was quiet and lovely when I moved there some 18 years ago. By the time I left 2 years ago they were continuing to build on every available slither of land even though the local ammenaties could no longer cope, and no more were being created. Traffic was ridiculous.

I since moved to just outside a lovely village and I would hate, hate to see huge development happening locally.

Yes but the lack of infrastructure was an preexisting problem. I don't know of anywhere that has too many school places. It's the same people and the same problems moving around. 5 people move to sheffield there's not suddenly an empty school in Dorset, because chances are that school in Dorset already had a waiting list. Of course the infrastructure needs building, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that it's not a good reason to object to new developments. We need more schools and gps irrespective of new houses being built.

People think that more house close to them will bring down the value of there house. Supply and demand and all that. Isn't necessarily the case though.

Except of course in areas where they are the crux of the matter.

As I said, ignoring any and all objections, dismissing them this lightly, leads to the kinds of misery I have described, here and many other such threads. I am describing the area I live in, not some potential, imagined scenario

Our local town has hundreds of new houses. All sorts of infra-structure promised in the plans, surgery, schools, shops etc. What did they get? Nothing. So next time locals will oppose new developments. People only get fooled once.

We've had thousands of houses built on farmland, greenfield sites and even some woodland.
All built as desirable 'luxury' housing ( my arse!)
What is actually needed is affordable housing for those in lower paid jobs or even ordinary paid jobs.
Huge volumes of these houses were purchased by landlords with vast portfolios in order to provide expensive rental properties or were bought in bulk by London Boroughs in order to move out their tenants as they could make so much more , by doing their existing housing up in order to rent/sell to highest bidders.

Locals can barely get a look in.

The latest development near me is flogging the fact that there's a GP in our village. It closed down years ago.
That there's a dentists five minutes away... it doesn't take NHS patients nor do any of the dentists for quite some distance away.
That there's a local primary ... it's already oversubscribed.
What has enraged us is that all of these houses haven't even been built yet but have all been sold to these london boroughs and property portfolio holders.

We desperately need homes for young people, ordinary people , local workers.
Two 'blocks' of what look like post war utilitarian blocks of flats/maisonettes have been built , in really poor fabric ... think plastic grey mouldings and plain dark brick with no features, for key workers.
It's so wrong.

Yet our town is full of delapidated areas and is in desperate need of renovation.

We need proper housing solutions for real people. And local too.

Big apartment block next to me, our house price has dropped considerably

Additional 1500 houses built around me. House price has risen the same as the rest of the area.

Individual tales aren't the point.

Local solutions that are actually viable, sustainable are the point.

Of course the infrastructure needs building, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that it's not a good reason to object to new developments.Of course it is a good reason. It’s difficult to absorb 400 new people an area if there are no plans for improving infrastructure. Yes, they’ve all come from somewhere else - but they haven’t all come from the same somewhere else.

YABU. There are so many issues with building onto farmland. It’s devastating for wildlife, bad for food supply, and contributes massively to pollution with so many more cars driving to towns to get supplies.

The vast majority of councils approve new housing but pay no attention to additional amenities, leaving doctors, schools oversubscribed.

I can’t think of a better reason to object that infrastructure though? Small village on its 7th new estate in 10 years. Issues already apparent after estate 1 and 2 (no gp, no dentist, no train station - there is a train line, no shops, one primary school intake 15, issues with sewers/flooding) It’s not speculation it’s inevitable issues will follow due to lack of infrastructure. But yet estates 4,5,6,7 added.
Latest proposal is a massive retirement housing development but no Gp. The Gp
in next village already overwhelmed.

It is very simple. Every time we build on farmland we reduce our ability to feed ourselves.

Would you like food prices to rise, as fuel prices have done? Do you want to go hungry?

Because it can happen. In the news today, and the analysts are already warning of it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64288792. We haven't had a food shortage since WWII but don't think it can't happen. We had half the mouths to feed and a lot more empty space then.

Building on farmland is stupid, spectacularly shortsighted and dangerous.

I've been ranting about this for the last 15 years. Farmland in the UK is a finite resource, particularly good arable land.

Are there enough brownfield sites for all the houses we need?

There are plenty of brownfield sites - most of the hundreds of houses built on farmland in my small town could have been built on several disused industrial/office sites - they would have been ideal as they are already surrounded by housing, but the developers can get farmland cheaply and they don't have to worry about clearing the site.

It doesn't matter whether there is or not. No point starving in an executive 5 bed home.

All grade 1&2 farmland must be protected.

A quick Google suggests there's enough brownfield sits for 1.2m homes, but not enough for all the houses needed.
Brownfield sites should obviously be used first, but if we need to use more space then we need to use more space.

Or we manage the poplulation of the country better.

We cannot build on every slip of land and all the farm land. Then we cannot sustain ourselves at all.

If we reduce the population who will pay taxes or provide care for all the old people? Without building enough houses there wouldn't be enough working age people to utilize the farmland.

Population control has to be part of the solution. At the moment it's gigantic Ponzi scheme. We have added at least 10m people to the UK population as of the last census, to 67m, and supermarket sales figures and replenishment systems suggest that the real figure is between 75m and 85m when the undocumented population is included.