To feel really upset about the lack of scrutiny on new housing development in the countryside

[DazedAndConfused2024]

Please don’t call me a NIMBY, but I’m really upset about the likelihood of housing development in the countryside and the likely lack of scrutiny for inappropriate development.
I accept there are housing targets to be met. This isn’t the issue.

However, where I live there is a small group of local town councillors who are adamant that all housing will be placed in areas other than behind their homes. It’s not localism…it really is as is.

By way of example; one potential development site has been reviewed to be suitable for approx 100-120 dwellings, yet the town council have tried to push double that onto the site (going against the borough’s own landscape reports on site suitability).
It is very depressing.

Given the current political atmosphere and rampant desire for more development, I am really worried that there will be no possibility to sensibly and logically critique proposals for over development, such as these, especially when the 5 year land supply is not being met.
I am concerned that scrutiny will be forgotten in the mad rush to build.

I’m the opposite - I am completely fed up with NIMBYs and their mindless opposition to development. We are losing primary schools round here because there aren’t enough children. An extra 20-30 houses in each village would be transformative, otherwise we are going to have fossilised villages.

We also have small villages with mainline train stations that are vociferously opposing any development, yet ranting about why people keep on driving through their village. It’s because idiots like them object to the placement of a speed bump, let alone a new house.

@shockeditellyou it’s not an extra 20-30 houses. More like 250 in a site suitable for 120 that is the issue.
Its site suitability that is the issue.

I question the need for the hundreds of thousands of new properties. In neighbouring village there must have been 1000 new houses built, vandalusm/antisocial behaviour rocketed. Yet within 100 yards of me there are 4 (presumably ex-) housing association, 3/4 bed properties just being left to rot. And this is over several years, so not a probate difficulty. So many empty properties (not to mention an absolutely deserted town centre, devoid of shops but plenty of empty buildings) but so many houses built on prime agricultural land (South-east) with no schools, surgeries or water/drainage facilities.

The thing is, the whole reason NIMBYism exists is because of poor development. If developments were aesthetically pleasing, sensitive and proportionate to their environment, accompanied by appropriate infrastructure, you wouldn’t get NIMBYism.

Instead we have big house builders cramming as many poor quality houses into as small a space as possible. They use greenfield sites as much as they can because it’s cheaper. Promises are made about infrastructure that never materialise. There is no consideration of the fact that the communities they build in belong to people, they are not just sites to be exploited.

So people feel powerless and have no faith that their communities will actually be improved by development. Their only option is to object.

I kinda think the nimbys have brought this soon themselves. If they’d allowed housing at a reasonable rate then the massive blocks wouldn’t have to be built.

yeah sucks bro. Bothered !

Everywhere there are buildings used to be countryside. Better to build up smaller villages, with the infrastructure to support houses, than just endlessly over develop cities and big towns

The problem is these noddy houses are clearly popular for average Joe! Many of these big developments are designed by house builders and don’t have any architectural design in the scheme. And yet in many places noddy newbuilds sell for more than the larger older equipment.
It’s nuts to me but there’s clearly an appetite for it.

What is it about the site that makes it suitable for 120 houses but not 250?

Most "nimbys" are concerned about the infrastructure. It's all very well
Building 400 new homes but that's potentially 500 children who need school
Places. 2000 people who need a doctor/dentist. 1000 extra cars on the roads

There is more to the story than the actual houses.

And yet when the prisoners are let out early no doubt those of us on social housing estates will be told that we will have to take our share.

From what I've read, the new government is proposing that large development plans will be taken out of local council control and decided by a higher up national planning authority. Thus avoiding such potential NIMBYism...

The houses have to be built somewhere though. Not everyone can live in a large town or city. There isn't that much countryside in this country anyway, most of the land is for farming. The government needs to promote housebuilding and protect countryside. The sites they're planning to allow new houses on are mainly brownfield sites that have previously been used for something, but are now left unused.

I agree, I think we need to preserve farm land and look at empty areas already built on - empty retail parks, empty areas in town centres - before we destroy farmland. Both building where there is already infrastructure and bringing life back to areas - people living in a town centre can bring it back to life.

And yes 20-30 properties on villages but that is not attractive to developers.

One huge issue I find with NIMBYS is it comes from a very selfish place at times, one where essentially they don’t want to share their toys. They generally are quite a small percentage of the population, lucky enough to enjoy living in beauty spots. They usually want to raise the draw bridge and not let anyone else in on their area that they seem to think they own. I grew up on a council estate in London, no one cared how we lived or what was developed, I’m lucky enough through the randomness of life to have lived in two beautiful places where everyone is up in arms about new development, where you start out in life is a lottery, where you end up can be as well, but aside from the need for new housing, also let people in on the views and surroundings that some get to enjoy if they are able, and just share.

Medium / high environmental sensitivity. The borough’s own landscape review says it is not suitable for development - but it is being brought forward as a development site.

Like I said - we have declining primary school rolls and tiny villages with mainline rail stations where the older population in the village has fought tooth and nail against any development.

We have large new towns being built in our county far away from where the demand is, as that’s the only place where NIMBYs won’t add 5 years to any development.

Infrastructure is easily sorted by mandating developers to have fulfilled their S106 obligations before 50% of units sold.

I understand the need for more housing but previous posts make valid points: shoving a load of houses in with no increase in infrastructure is rife around here. 400 new houses going up on agricultural land with no bus service, a very small village school that can’t fit any more kids, a tiny drs surgery, no dentist within 20 miles, no NHS dentist within 40 miles, nearest town minimum 15 miles away…all of that…but what gets my goat and boils my piss more than anything is that of all these houses there will be maybe 40 “affordable” boxes and the others have NO restrictions : no local occupancy rules, no holiday let restrictions, no second-home restrictions. So in essence they’re really building money making schemes for the fat cats and greedy landlords. Arrrrrrggggggghhhhh. Fuck it all. Will get off my soapbox. As you were.

Exactly. They decided to vote Lib Dem to stop the Tory government building near them and have ended up with a Labour government who couldn't care less about them.

Serves them right.

Our town has had around 2000 homes built in the last 5 years. In that time we haven't had any extra schools, doctors or dentists and the town is absolutely heaving. The local schools are getting calls most days asking about places but there aren't any. No one can get a dentist appointment and we only have one hospital serving a 40 mile radius. The most shocking thing is that only around half of these shoddy shoe boxes are lived in full time. About a quarter are holiday homes and another quarter are sitting there empty because they are so bloody expensive for what they are!

We need a huge number of houses built - too many people in temporary accommodation, can't afford to buy due to shortage of properties ( which pushes up prices), in substandard, damp housing or just experiencing a lack of choice in the areas they want to buy.
I'm looking forward to the new Labour government accelerating the house building programme to solve these problems.
I'm fed up of NIMBYs who can't see beyond their own good fortune
It's so hard for young people now

Completely agree! And it's not just 10s, 20s or even a few hundred that have been proposed in recent years, but often developments of thousands! We've had hundreds and hundreds go up around here and schools, gp surgery's, dentists and chemists are all creaking at the seams. And the inpact on our groundwater/flood plains and general water quality doesn't bear thinking about. I really hope labour comes up with something sensible, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I completely disagree with @cookiebee. Most people on our town Facebook group are very concerned about new housing being built, eg 250 homes on a 125 plot, and more so that lack of infrastructure - gp's, schools etc. nearly everyone is in agreement, we can't all be 'nimby's'!

So you are a nimby then?

Housing is desperately needed but unless substantial amounts of it are earmarked as affordable housing there will still be an issue with people being able to afford to buy. Unless house prices fall substantially people who can't afford to buy won't suddenly be able to just because there are more houses.

There also needs to be social housing included in any development. It's no good easing planning restrictions if people are excluded from buying or renting the new houses.

I don't know if the intention is to include restrictions and obligations, such as local connection or providing a certain percentage of social housing but if not then this building is going to make no difference to the underlying problems about finding housing in this country.