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 dont want what remains of our farmland, woodland and green spaces built on, I'd rather there were less people.

We're losing wildlife habitats at a rate of knots, replaced with poor quality shitboxes with astroturf gardens, maybe serviced by some ring roads and dual carriageways to run more animals over and some retail parks so people can buy fast food and tat ro fill themselves and their homes up.

Grim.

If new homes are needed, the council will commission studies to see where the best area is to encourage development based on existing infrastructure. Then they’ll ignore that and let the developers build where they can get the most £/square metre. It happened where I used to live. The population increased greatly over 20 years, the council knew lots of new homes were needed and chose the best area for development. Them the new homes were built on the other side of town in the most expensive postcode. There are some lovely fields on the other side of town right next to a giant supermarket, a doctor’s surgery, easy A-road access to the neighbouring town and a motorway junction.

There are lots of ex MOD sites around the country waiting to be built on but planning and infrastructure
is holding up progress. These are not countryside and they are appropriate for housing . I think the government has these sites in mind. Yes some greenfield might be built on like rural exception sites where housing needs to be offered for local people at affordable levels.

Some fringe areas of greenfield will be built on to extend cities and villages by moderate amounts. This isn’t going to threaten our access to the countryside- it will just be small pockets.

We need to get building quickly- it’s good for families and the economy. We need big investment to make it viable and do it properly though- will be worth the investment in the long run

We live in a deprived area and every remaining area of so-called ‘green belt’ around us is earmarked either for industrial use or more and more housing despite lack of schools/doctors, massive traffic congestion etc.

We might be nimbys, but why aren’t poor people allowed any beauty or green spaces? Do we really need to concrete over every single piece of nature and make our already dog shit town a place with zero quality of life?

Like a pp said, it’s big developers who win. Nobody else. We just cram more and more people into little poorly built cheap boxes. Instead we should be strategic about the future and what kind of country we want - overpopulated with stressed out people in traffic jams with poor air quality? Or something more edifying?

I wouldn’t worry. It won’t happen.

Yep, developers.

Did ANYONE think 'yay!' when Labour announced building thousands of new homes was their big reveal? Apart from the developers and building companies?

I agree..in the end it isn't nimbyism or planning that's stopping building, it is the developers.

We need to sort out mass immigration and issues like second homes, empty homes, holiday homes. All new homes need to be as eco friendly as possible, attractive looking with suitable infrastructure for the population.

Otherwise it will be shit.

YANBU. In order for 1.5 million houses to be built in 5 years Labour will have to tear up planning regs and objections from locals - however reasonable - will be ridden roughshod over.

It’s crap. What we needed was 50k homes a year over the last twenty years. Too late now.

But I’m glad I didn’t vote for them. Much will be lost.

They’ll destroy large parts of agricultural production as developers can make much more money on a green fuels site. But if you voted Labour that’s what you voted for. Own it.

Field sites

This. Have you all tried living in a village which is accessible by a single track road? Or has a single shop selling the basics? Or a tiny train station with no parking? Because I have. I’m all ears and would love to know how you think it would manage with an extra 1000+ residents?

About time they tore up the planning laws , town and country act was brought in the 1940s it's not fit for purpose. Look at the attempt at another Thames crossing to see how much of a mess planning is. Millions spent on a document so big no one person can read.

I have read many posters bringing up that they are not NIMBYS, but are concerned about the lack of infrastructure on small villages that start to grow. If you read up on the growing of big cities, they didn’t all just automatically grow with everything everyone needs, they developed organically, most of what now is busy highly populated inner London was once tiny villages. As the population grew, entrepreneurs, councils and business folk filled the need for all the services we require.

Anyone living in a crop of new houses on the edge of a village will have to register with doctors/dentists yoga instructors, or whatever the hell they need elsewhere, however far away, and soon enough developers will see a chance for profit and build medical centres, supermarkets and anything else that is needed and they can make a profit off of providing. It’s just how things work, everything isn’t just automatically provided for free.

When anyone goes on about these reasons that we shouldn’t extend their village, it’s never really about infrastructure or flooding (that argument was used to try and stop a development at the end of our road which was beautiful fields leading to national trust coastline), it’s always certainly because no one wants to share where they live, they love that they have quiet beautiful views and don’t want it ruined, I wish people would just admit that. Thousands of houses are going up on vast fields at the edges of where I live in the north west, it’s going to join our coastal town up with the next one and leave us with fewer beautiful vast spaces, there is a load of wind farms off our coastline, none of us really want this change, but it has to happen.

Already there is another supermarket going to be built, and more clinics etc will follow, and that will happen in your villages that will be extended. I just wish people would admit that they just don’t want their beautiful places ruined with more people because they like it how it already is and don’t want to share. Adding to that in case anyone comes for me, I totally get it though!

You can search for community infrastructure levy /CIL and S106 money and see what has been spent from it locally and what it was allocated for when the developers paid it as a planning condition. I looked this up when I was looking for funding for playground redevelopment at our local primary. And then push in local government etc for it to be spent on the infrastructure it was intended for.

You can write in support of local brownfield developments if that’s what you want when they’re mooted. You can create or join groups pushing for cycle paths and footpaths that make developments less car dependent.
Schools are closing round here because there aren’t enough children, lack of school places is not a problem everywhere. Although I’ve heard people object to a local brownfield development on the grounds of school places through ignorance of the mothballed classrooms etc.

I don’t know what the right level is for immigration but I do know when visiting care homes professionally and from working in the NHS that many staff are immigrants- we have an aging population and one way or another need people of working age willing to work in health and social care.

Also , I’m not convinced, although open to rational arguments, that objecting to so many developments on the grounds that there aren’t enough affordable homes is helpful to the pain of the housing crisis. Isn’t it sometimes just closet NIMBYism? It’s a housing market, if there is more supply (with measures that make second home ownership unattractive) won’t the price come down anyway? 80% of a high market value might be the same as 100% of a lower market value if prices fall because competition for accommodation is less fierce.

We need to retain agricultural land and countryside- we should not be aiming to fill it up with building- there should be nothing on greenfield while there is any brownfield left.

Funnily enough the developments are getting put where the schools are full to bursting not on the areas where a handful of schools are empty.

That's what I assumed but apparently that's not how it works.

A house in our village that was bought for 400k a few years ago has just sold for 1.1 million. There could be 10,000 houses built nearby and that wouldn't have made any difference to that sale price.

Anyone living in a crop of new houses on the edge of a village will have to register with doctors/dentists yoga instructors, or whatever the hell they need elsewhere, however far away, and soon enough developers will see a chance for profit and build medical centres, supermarkets and anything else that is needed and they can make a profit off of providing

That hasn't happened anywhere near me, and they've been building for 30 years on and off.

OP your town council won't have any power in the decision on where new houses will go.

It will be your district or county council.

And there will be consultation on the plans, although of course the end result may still not be what you personally would like.

So many people don't bother to engage in local or neighbourhood planning and then whinge about new development on Greenfield sites near them.

I was brought up in a mining community in the North of England.
A new town was built up very rapidly joining all the villages together. For nearly 15 years the only building was houses. It became s grim and depressing place. Littering and vandalism everywhere. Corruption within the local council resulted in the destruction of important historical buildings.
Eventually schools, shops and health services appeared.
50 years later the town is prosperous, well served with amenities. A conservation programme is restoring some of the places that were ruined.
It was awful for the people who lived there through the first 15 years.
I hope this round of new towns is better organised.

The issues where I am are

a. that a really large development is being built (housing association) which on the face of it is great news BUT will have no benefit to people in this area instead it is housing people from council waiting lists thirty to forty miles away

b. housing developments in the area (for sale) are not what is needed locally i.e 2/3 bed homes with gardens would be great for local families but what we have being built are 4/5 bedroom "executive" homes which are either not selling quickly enough to allow the next phase of the development to progress or are selling to people from out of area

I have no objection whatsoever to building taking place but please let it be what is needed and wanted in that particular area

We have an accepted neighbourhood plan in our area.

We have met our 5 year housing supply by proactively identifying suitable sites. However our plan also requires all homes to include solar panels, sufficient off-street parking (we have VERY narrow roads and lanes), electric charging points, for two native trees to be planted for every dwelling and then protected with a protection order, and an allowance for greenspace calculated on the number of houses. Other things include flood alleviation, upgrades to village sewage plants, improved broadband, uprated electricity supply etc.

The permission granted includes 2 bed, 3 bed and 4 bed. No 5 beds.

Funny how the developers' enthusiasm fades when they are granted permission but with conditions requiring them to build decent quality housing with appropriate facilities that limit impact on the parish. 🙂 We have two sites with outline planning permission, where the owners cannot find developers willing to buy.

We have yet to see if Labour's policies will impact how we work.

That's not nimbys, that the developers. They don't want to build 20 houses here and 30 houses there, they want to build a big fuck off development of 200 houses, on a plot of land they already have their eye on.

This. The coming food crisis is inevitable and we need to retain as much productive agricultural land as possible.

I really think planning has to change to centre services, space for a walk in clinic, a nursery, some shops, maybe a community hall type of thing. There are too many developments that are badly served but people need to live somewhere.