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.

we need to build more houses and some of them will have to be where people would rather they weren’t. If there was more supply then the prices should come down. Many of the problems on mn , cost of living crisis, cost of childcare , not enough bedrooms for children and stepchildren, adult children not able to move out are at root caused by the cost of housing which is caused by limited supply . Government needs to also make every effort to get empty houses occupied, and brownfield sites developed and build social housing but it won’t be enough. I also don’t understand why people are so anti developers as businesses, most people accept that supermarkets are businesses and don’t support communism .

No. Not nimby, Because I oppose it everywhere.
When councils don't do their job properly, bribes sometimes, planning depts. rogue builders. The more you read the more you find out how unscrupulous it all is. Throughout. Often corrupt. Often incompetent.

If you think it's not, you are naieve.

And no. None of these have ever been close to me. None directly affected me. But 3 friends and my mum yes, so I read into it in great detail, and my bil and brothers are ex builders so I have read about it from all sides.

We left a village that had already joined up with several other nearby villages, due to the amount of new housing going up in the South. The reason we left was that the place was getting just too busy, we couldn't get a doctors appointment for a month, the schools were over subscribed, and it took over an hour to get to our nearest town, only 3 miles away, because of the traffic.

We've come back to live in an area about 40 miles away, and go back to our old area to visit friends there. Since we left, there has been at least 4,000 more new houses built in the area, but there is still no sign of any new doctors surgeries, schools, pharmacies, or anything to support all this growth.

In my opinion, it's time that builders were made to stick to the promises they make when persuading Councils to allow planning permission. I used to think, (naively it seems), that this country had relatively little corruption, compared to places like Spain, but since the Tory government started to show it's true colours, it's become clear just how much of it goes on, so it seems likely to me that it's the Councillors who are responsible for a lot of the problems, as I think it's highly likely that some of them are more than happy to accept a bung, in order to turn a blind eye to these failures to complete infrastructure that has been promised. Of course, I could be wrong, but with all the sleaze we've seen in Government over recent years, it does make you wonder, so I think maybe we all need to take some responsibility, get involved in what's going on locally, attend Council meetings, and hold them to account when they don't do the things we expect of them. The trouble is though, that everyone claims to be too busy to get involved, but then moans when new developments are pushed through, and the first they know of it, is when it's a done deal, or they see the developers moving in with their diggers. Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now.

What you are describing seems almost corrupt, or I wish it was.

As for housing, I think some development could be avoided in places such as the OP describes if second homes were restricted greatly and short term lets banned in some areas.

I'd love to see more self-build social housing opportunities personally. When you think how much it actually costs to build a basic structure - timber framed/shipping container homes, surely there is an answer there somewhere for those ready to move on from existing social housing.

That's not how it works is it?
Offenders generally 'go home', go to a hostel or find someone to shack up with quickly. No-one is allocating offenders homes on a rota basis.

The problem with Labour's approach is that it's not original; it's keeping with the current trend of big investors buying green land to build poor quality housing estates that look the same wherevever you go. Why don't they:

• develop brown fields
• turn empty retail and office dpaces into housing
• build up
• explain how adequate infrastructure will be put in place to support the new houses?

No but eventually that is what happens Got one living underneath me right now.

It is the unscrupulous private developers that are the problem. Clearly building is focused on maximising profit. There is a lot of building going on near me, both on good ag land and on old single dwelling sites. It is surprising that the majority of the new homes are large/ detached /4 or 5 bedroom units. The prices would be difficult for ordinary families to afford but someone is obviously buying them. The gardens are tiny and overlooked on multiple sides. As many houses packed in as possible and right beside the dual carriageway.I really don't envy the buyers.

We really need smaller homes including flats. More people live alone now. There should also be stipulations for more trees/communal green space. Shops and local services should be incorporated as old social housing used to have. Maybe even make rooftop solar panels a requirement?

But if net migration is running at over 500k plus it doesn't matter if we build 1.5 million homes there will never be enough ...its just bollocks .

The developers should have to start with building the infrastructure and the social and affordable homes, apart from a couple of show homes. Councils should have the power to prevent building the really profitable stuff until this has been done to a good standard. that might not work is landscaping but at least other things like playgrounds etc can be put in.

Affordable housing, and housing that has to be lived in - I.e. not bought as a second home. And be sensitive to the areas. Where I am, each village could take a (smaller) number of new builds with out changing character etc. much better than picking one village and tripling its size by doing one big development. Of course the residents will get narky!

But most importantly - build on brown field sites first. So many abandoned sites and old factories etc. use them first. And for goodness sake, don’t build on flood plains! It never ever works. It always has massive impacts somewhere along the river.

And it can’t be hard for the developer to pay a one off tax before being allowed to put one spade in the ground to pay for schools, doctors etc. They all promise it - and never pay it….

People who are pleased about the nimbies getting their comeuppance are really just supporting the big developers who are laughing all the way to the bank. I find it really odd that people on the left show so little support for communities and so much for big house builders.

Development should enhance communities. If it was well-designed people would ask for it. They would see that yes there are downsides, but overall this will be a positive thing for my community. If people aren’t seeing that, the developers are getting something wrong.

My town council have recently asked a social housing developer to propose a small development on council land. It is well-designed, not too big, connecting to decent infrastructure and will be 100% affordable. Not everyone is in favour of course but there have been very few objections. It was something the community wanted and asked for.

Nimby is a good thing surely?

The problem is they build all these houses but don't upgrade the infrastructure or build shops, doctors, schools, bus routes etc. We've had 3 new estates but no new doctors or dentists, no road upgrades.

Before covid, getting through my town from 7.30-9.30 was awful, traffic at a standstill, getting off my new build estate and on to the motorway at the end of the road would take 20 minutes, and once on it would crawl up to the next junction. All it takes is for a car to breakdown or an accident and the whole town grinds to a halt.

I'm on the waiting list for a steroid injection, I'm in tears sometimes. The first time took 4 months to get one by which time my problem was even more severe. The doctors can't cope with the extra patients from all these extra homes.

Another problem is they aren't affordable to the majority of the current residents. I live in the commuter belt, the towns younger generations are being pushed out of their home town to make way for out of towners from London moving to be nearer the countryside. I see it all the time on local Facebook pages.

And then there's all the wildlife that we make homeless by building on all the fields.

Affordable is 80% of market rent
Social is 40% of market rent
They are not the same

Get an NDP
Get a good consultant
set sane rules
you'll get good housing

The problem is they build all these houses but don't upgrade the infrastructure or build shops, doctors, schools, bus routes etc. We've had 3 new estates but no new doctors or dentists, no road upgrades.

Same here. Moved here 9 years ago, and was told then there were no school places for DC9. Had to go private initially. Now our town is listed as a lovely place to live, people are moving here, then write letters to the paper saying their DC are in 3 different schools as no places.

@CaliforniaChill s106 and CIL go back decades
work with them, not against them

Agree….it will end up looking like some dystopian nightmare. I’m thinking we will all end up living in a place like the film Dredd.
I think all of this overcrowding is a disaster for mental health. I’ve lived in cities and the stress I felt was awful. I had to move to an area that is quiet and green…if they keep building there will be no escape for anyone.

I've given up wasting my time objecting to planning applications for huge new housing estates. Houses are going up like bloody mushrooms around here, on high quality farmland in a dry area of the country that will only get drier. We need to think about about population size, food security, and how much immigration we want and need.

Otherwise we're just part of a Ponzi scheme.

One of the main objections for the 3000 houses they want to build in our area is the increase in traffic. The council solution to this is that they will provide a bus route. But actually, if they redesigned the plans to build in very good cycle routes for electric bikes into the heart of the city then they'd have a shot at a car-less development but they won't bother.

Also we have old sewers that cannot cope with the poo we have!
They're not being replaced…then we have flooding! Yes let’s build and concrete over more fields so we can have more of these issues! 😡

Town councillor here - Town councils don't submit planning applications. They come from developers who have purchased land. Town councils are usually only consultees which means they can submit local knowledge and objections/requests to the planning officer but ultimately the decision lies with a planning officer at the main council. If the officer disagrees with a town council it can be sent to a committee which is heard in public who can then make a decision.

I too share some concerns about the new rules but like previous posters have said we have a desperate shortage of good quality, affordable housing. Engage with the planning process submit comment and go to the meetings

I’ve always said it’s the biggest Ponzi scheme too!