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.

People voted Labour because the conservatives weren't doing well and change was needed.

The government should be listening to the people whichever party they are

We need to keep as much agricultural land as possible

I have mixed feelings about compulsion from government, but we need a joined-up approach with local councils including parish / town councils involved and a carrot and stick approach.

I live in a small village with a pub which has been closed for the last four years. The pub had become unpopular, the owners decided not to re-open after Covid, they sold up. It was bought by someone who then decided not to re-open it as a pub after all. So far so normal.

The building is ripe for conversion into flats, probably no more than four which would hardly overwhelm the village. There is more than adequate car parking and garden space. At this point, someone in authority should be pushing the new owner to actually do something rather than just letting the weeds grow.

We had a housing estate built on some land that had a covenant on it saying it could only be used for recreational purposes. The protest went on for years because not only did they want to build on something that was recreational and used by 100s of people a week, and employed many locals, it had been the habitat for deer, foxes etc. but they scrapped the covenant, and up went a shiny new Taylor Wimpey shoe box housing estate with no doctors, shop or upgraded roads. A 2 minute drive down the road each way and you now have another two new housing estates built on farmland, with no doctors or shop and still no road upgrades. Across the roundabout in the next town you also have three new large housing estates.

Successive government's have forced houses on already over populated areas in the South East with little regard for the environment or population already there.

Farming is no longer viable for a lot of farmers which is why they end up selling their land off to the developers. If we made it profitable, I'm sure they'd rather keep it.

Was this Bicester?

I hate the way the government or council rides rough shod over these agreements

Same happened with a sport recreation ground taken by HS2 even though it was left in trust for residents

@Theoldwrinkley i strongly believe that all empty/abandoned/second homes and empty shops and offices should be utilised for housing first before building on more green spaces and encroaching into villages making mini towns without suitable infrastructure or thought to residents. If all of the above were used first it would make some dent in the housing ‘crisis’

@Grapefruitjelly you have hit the nail on the head. There would maybe not be so much opposition if housing was done more sensitively with thought to people privacy, those of us who live in villages do so because we want peace, privacy etc not houses crammed in together as close as possible without room to breath or chance to get away from others

I don't agree with building on agricultural land, food security is vital.
It would help if everyone didn't want to live in the SE.
Lots of areas in the UK where they could build but there aren't people who want to live there. Maybe incentives to relocate major companies from SE to NE.
Move more government departments out of London.
I think councils should be obliged to build an equal number of social housing as owner occupied. No right to buy. Empty buildings compulsorily purchased by local authorities for housing if unoccupied for over a year.

Plus they are only getting out a few weeks early, not months or years, where were they planning on going before?

Much much much more value NEEDS to be given to agricultural land. Houses must not be built on any agricultural land, or land that is suitable for agriculture. Our food supply is already dependent on imports and will get worse against a backdrop of changing climate impacting food supply worldwide. Labour have got nowhere near placing sufficient import on food security.

Yes

We can be controlled by food shortages and it's nit good to have to import everything

Unfortunately I think the steam will run out of the local groups who band together to try snd stop the developments.

It's open season.

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

Absolutely! How can they not realise this? Just as clueless as the last lot!

Most "nimbys" aren't against development if it's done well. Like others, I live in a very small village, 1 bus twice a day at impractical times. No shop, or school or drs etc. lots of lorry traffic though trying to get to other places. Schools here are all over subscribed as surrounding towns and villages are growing at a fast rate. Our village has grow by 15% in past 5 years. No additional schools or services in any of them.

So if we got proper infrastructure along with the houses, maybe people wouldn't be so anti. Some kids round here have to travel over an hour to get to school. There is no public transport to get to the drs. The bus routes just don't exist

Clearly there are areas who need the new houses in order to keep schools going but not around here. So rather than blanket changes, maybe the focus should be properly targeted.

No way! It's the hill a lot of people are willing to die on

Also I thought the government wanted people out of cars and onto public transport

No joined up thinking

Net zero???

Nonsense

@Collexifon maybe but folks like me, I'm not a main instigator or organiser against local development but I did support, went on a few protest marches, wrote to mp and local paper and donated some money.
My steam has gone. I'm not going to waste more time and energy fighting a non negotiating juggernaut steam rollering everywhere.

They must have had huge backhanders from the building companies or else none of this absolute nonsense makes any sense at all.

People need houses so somewhere along the line more need to be built. Fine.

My issues with this are...

Lack of infrastructure-so many houses have gone up local to me but it's already hard enough to get a doctors appointment, no NHS dentist and the main primary school is pretty much full. Not to mention the increase in cars causing bottlenecks at peak times.

The price-they are outrageously expensive and there is a huge lack of affordable ones. Even the affordable ones aren't affordable, we need more council houses.

Building on flood plains...I live in an area which is surrounded by them but new houses are being built on or close to the floodplains. All of the water is now being pushed elsewhere causing way more flooding and causing issues for businesses.

The size of them-I looked at a 3 bed new build but it was ridiculously tiny. The living space would have been suitable for a couple, a family would have no chance of squeezing into the tiny lounge. Bedrooms so small you can't fit a single bed in there and open the door fully, let alone any other furniture. Stop cramming them all in and make them more use able. Also sort out the quality, paper thin walls, mud pit gardens and shoddy plumbing. I know it's not all of them but some companies are renowned for being shoddy, it shouldn't be allowed.

Use empty buildings as well as building new houses, they can't all be unavailable. It's probably more expensive but better for everyone in the long run.

Fair enough. There's plenty of proud Nimbys near me, retired and with nothing else to do. They are brilliant at it tbf 😆

@Youmeanyouvelostyourkey in all the shit flats and development around us only one of has been done well. But it was private land sold by a huge business to developer and it's really nice. Loads of greenery, trees, all the houses have differences in appearance and detail, space, play areas. But I guess it was expensive.

Back in the 50s/ 60s my village and the next one had loads of council housing. Houses, bungalows, gardens, green spaces. All beautifully kept. My childhood friend from school was 1 of 11 children and their council house was 2 houses knocked together. I loved going there as it seemed huge to me. Everyone had their washing lines on grassy spaces around the houses and all had little gardens. Of course they are all privately owned now.

@Pickingmyselfup well put. Totally agree. The flooding where we are has got worse and worse as the building continues up hill from here and the water has no where to go apart from downhill. Local planning has allowed the overflow ponds to have been filled in too so more flooding as water has nowhere to go.

Then in summer, we immediately get warnings of low water supplies, high increase in population but no new reservoirs etc.

I agree .

They are building a new garden town of 6000 near me and the objections are all routed in the lack of infrastructure, all the schools doctor road change layouts all suspended due to funding , houses still going ahead

@Youmeanyouvelostyourkey it doesn’t make sense does it? I thought we were in a climate emergency? Surely we need as much green space and wooded areas as possible for soaking up all of the excess rain we are going to get and to stop every where just being an oven from being over developed concrete jungles? Colour me sceptical

What we are seeing is the blatant abuse of small plots in villages. These are spaces in small towns and villages which have been earmarked for housing development. This is a brilliant initiative intended to provide affordable homes for the young people who were born in the village.

The rule is that if you build 6 homes or over a certain percentage has to be designated affordable. Unfortunately small local developers cannot afford to develop these spaces, so the big names move in, build 5 homes to avoid having to build any affordable units.

So instead of the village being able to home it's own young people they end up with 5 executive homes no one can afford, and the land for the homes they need has gone.