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.

Yes it’s painful how ‘but there’s loads of green when you come into X airport’ is ACTUALLY used as justification, do they have any idea how much land is needed to provide the food for just 1 person every year? All hope of self sufficiency is lost and not realistic anyway, but we really should retain as much as we can for environmental reasons if nothing else. Plus our ever increasing flood risk how much has it rained the last few months

The very same posters will be on here in 2040 to whinge about ‘short sighted politicians who ruined our food supply and landscape so we can live in an over polluted, crowded, under resourced hell hole’

They never learn.

So many people DO bother though and are never listened to.

Tbf I know a lot of people who work from home, many families need a working form home space these days, in my family the spare bedroom is often actually an office (or 2 offices if the space allows)

I think this is the nub of it.

The reason I suspect that the ‘grand plan’ will fade and die is that - as I understand it - planning rules will be relaxed but that building will depend on developers funding construction. So even if the government can keep development out of the courts, which I find hard to believe, there will have to be sufficient profit in construction.

New house building is a very hard-nosed (and generally spivvy) business. Trying to get builders with big enough workforces to commit to efficient construction of quality homes within short deadlines is a very hopeful policy.

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.

Old, old story. Near us the original developer often sells on the permission to another developer. They then go to the council and wiggle out of everything that has been agreed. People are fed up of being deceived, and ending up with something completely different from what was promised.

We also have several developments (in Devon) which have just been abandoned halfway because the money has run out. The new town of Cranbrook is still arguing about all the social and community infrastructure, which has still not been built 12 years in.

Labour are in for a big shock when they realise that NIMBYs aren't the problem after all - it's good old fashioned greed.

We had a massive building programme of prefabs. Not the the good quality post war type. These were the type that all blew down overnight in a thunderstorm (before they were finished, thankfully) and had to be replaced.
Building hundreds of houses before even considering new roads, public transport, shops or schools is always going to cause problems.

I can't believe the new government is so stupid that it doesn't think the developers will do exactly what they want, as usual. If this is anything more than a blank cheque for shitty quality housing to be built on greenfield sites I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Exactly. Locals told the planning department repeatedly that the flat pack houses weren't sturdy enough to withstand our local weather. Local historians begged them not to bulldose a historic building, the last of its type in the country, so the developers destroyed overnight on a Sunday. It was turned into a car park. These are the things that anger people.

Our local Tory council has given permission for our neighbours to build a giant 'gym with plumbing' in their garden (London) which takes up almost all the outdoor space and now very predictably has someone sleeping in there. They didn't even let us know at the planning stage and care not a jot now it is being lived in. Depressingly I don't feel like any of the parties care all that much anymore.

I'm not against building but don't trust developers to build good quality homes. An alternative would be to make use of existing stock by banning Airbnb and outlawing second home ownership. I don't think that nimbys would like that either so building it is.

It's important we're building the right type of housing, affordable, mix of sizes not expensive 5 bed places the developers want because they can get the most money etc. It's also important we build correctly otherwise we're creating social problems for the future eg poor quality, lack of amenities, flooding issues. We should also be making sure that the new developments are actual homes rather than second homes or holiday properties.

In my experience enabling comments at the planning stage has improved the final housing. Local people are more likely to look at the plans carefully and point out things like flooding issues which the local authority are not aware of (which then leads to surveys and modifications of plans). By looking more closely local people also spot things that planners have missed like parking issues, inadequate bin stores and developers not following rules such as amenity space, which again leads to a better overall developments. I see the chance to comment as an important step in holding developers to account and ensuring what is built is as good as it can be.

Look at the flooding fiasco in Fishlake. Did nobody question why the place was called Fishlake?
We had a similar problem with a new development on fields near where I live now. It cost them a fortune to deal with the ground water. Locals told them about the spring and the stream and the pond and the well. All of which feature in the local place names.

I think we need to build upwards not outwards. It would protect the countryside for growing important stuff (like enough food to feed 70million people) and for wildlife and recreation.

My young adult DC would happily live in a well designed flat (as would DH and I) but there just aren't any available near us.

Yes. It's very convenient to label everyone who objects as NIMBYS.

Many people have legitimate concerns. The housing estate near us was built across footpaths. There was a lot of protest and the powers that be couldn't give a shit,.protesters were labelled as awful middle class types and who has time to go walking these days? Move over, grandad!

The upshot is that they have had to build new pedestrian access which they have done by adding steps leading from the nearest road, so anyone in a wheelchair can't access the town from the estate and baby buggies are a huge struggle. No disabled access at all, whereas if they'd saved the footpath and built a flat tarmacadam bit along the side, which the NIMBYS proposed everyone would have been able to cycle/wheelchair/buggy.

I'm not a NIMBY. I want to see new homes built and I would be happy for them to be built in the fields at the end of my cul-de-sac if that was deemed necessary.

But, my town of around 8000 people has had around 1000 homes added to it in the last five years.

No new schools. No new GP surgeries. Dentists have left. These estates have been tacked onto existing roads causing a huge increase in traffic through the town, which already suffers from narrow streets, one way systems etc.

I want to ensure development is sensible and infrastructure is included with that. Developers shouldn't be allowed to add 100s of houses, make millions in profit, and do nothing about the extra services that are subsequently required. It's a total scam and I don't understand why more people are not angry about the fact that this is allowed to happen.

We live in a town where rampant building has taken place, huge ugly tower blocks.
Locally we have been fighting to keep one of area green and unfortunately we've lost but I feel it's all hopeless now and huge building firms many family owned and or owned by investment firms will be rubbing their hands with glee.
But hey... The locals may get work on the building sites...

Our roads are already painful to drive on, our services are buggered.

Exactly. And sadly I think the new government has stars in its eyes. The developers must be rubbing their hands with glee

I don’t agree with everyone on this thread but I think it’s a good discussion of a really important topic with people bringing in a lot of useful points from their experience and knowledge. What I’m taking from this is that it’s important to push hard for the details of developments to be right.

Assuming you have the same set up as me... The town council can say and do what they like, it will be decided by the district council who will over rule them.
We've had similar where I live where a vociferous lobby were claiming a site at the opposite end of town to them would be far far better for housing compared to the one behind their own (newly built ironically) homes. It all came to nothing and the development behind them is about to commence.

This is exactly what people do, and exactly what the government have said they will ignore.

The tone with which the minister talks about all this really rubs me up the wrong way.
I heard her on the radio and she was curt and crisp to the interviewer "this is what people voted for".

No actually tearing up greenbelt may have been on some people's agenda but they won because tory were so awful.

Another consideration is the Quality of these homes. They usually have small windows tiny postage stamp gardens, small box like rooms and lots of noise issues and echos snd reverberration..
Goodness knows what the flats are like in town here are certainly no trees for gardens attached

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

There'll doubtless be "public consultations" which they'll ignore too, but never mind; building in a more expensive area may well enable even better kickbacks for the council

It's lottery day for family run and investment run building firms.

I not sure where this eccomy drive benefits locals.
They usually have their own teams and contractors.

I had forgotten this, but as recently as 10 years ago, they built yet another housing estate on top of a newly discovered iron age settlement.

So disgusting how the developers get away with this.

Whilst the government continues to guilt trip us about the environment

Can't have it all ways