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.

Our village is desperate for cheap and affordable rental properties but what does the council build? 3 and 4 bed executive housing and expensive self builds for wealthy couples, on v desirable plots

An example is Bridge View in Calstock, SE Cornwall (Google it) 34 executive houses (cheapest over 450k) 10 of which were meant to be "affordable" (what a loads of bollox that is!) developer pulls the plug on the affordable options, so now the whole scheme is mothballed.

Meanwhile the local sewage plant cannot cope with another new housing estate (240 builds) so the shit is tankered out each and everyday, the Doctors surgery has less Doc's than 20 years ago and there are no NHS dentists.

I have to say, that the most vocal supporters of this most recent housing scheme has been Labour councillors, both county and Parish, many of whom have a lovely portfolio of BTL's....

Labour have not been an advocate for the working classes for many years.

Singapore social housing is extremely well designed. I spent a week staying with a relative in their government flat. It was spacious, practical and very comfortable. Every block has a small supermarket and a car park. The lifts work and everything is clean. Plenty of facilities.

That would certainly help, and I would add sound proofing and elevators or stair lifts to that list! It’s not just people with kids who struggle, older people like myself with disabilities can find flats more than a bit challenging - we can’t all find a ground floor apartment or afford a bungalow. That’s why I think planners need to encourage some creativity and flexibility, and perhaps try to provide a wider variety of accommodation than just high rise shoe boxes for singles or red brick noddy houses for families - but that needs to be achieved without further encroachment on greenfield sites. It will take much smarter brains than mine to figure it out, but right now the powers that be don’t even seem to be trying.

@Alexandra2001

We live quite near Calstock and know all about the complete farce that is Bridge View. Last I heard (from a friend on the PC) was that they were hoping a housing association was going to take it on.

It was only a smallish developer but he made such a hash out of it.

Labour have just announced that nutrient neutrality regs are holding things up too much, and that developers can start building straight away and=sort out all that pesky environmental stuff later.

The sheer naïve stupidity of this beggars belief frankly.

Crackers!

This country needs less housing in many areas because of environmental and infrastructure problems.

Our area & most of Cornwall, has housing issues, not because of lack of properties but because so many are now short term hols lets, Labour need to be sorting tis out, not building more unaffordable houses that end up as rentals or even lay empty.... over 30 houses built in Launceston are stil empty, even though are rentals.

Its a great shame we don't protest like those in Spain etc do over this problem.

Cannot see a HA taking over Bridge View, there are still 1000s of tones of excavation still to be done & imho the c/council inc the PC fucked this up, by believing the promise of 15 affordables within a luxury development, he was never going to build these, we all knew this at the time, as many objections stated.

@DoraSpenlow we also had the houses built on flood-risk land on the big estate where I used to live

The guy who originally owned the many acres made so much he's now living offshore, but apparently even that wasn't enough and some piffle was spouted about "special techniques" which would protect the homes. Predictably these didn't work, and now those homes too are practically uninsurable

Never mind though ... the councillors and planners probably feel it was worth it considering the money he spread around them in order to get his way

What's Labour's promise...1.5million homes over the next 5 years isn't it? That will barely keep pace with the current level of net migration. So you are constantly chasing your tail. How many homes do we need? 5 million? 10 million?

It will never be enough.

Ultimately the problem is too many people in this world, so when I read threads about plummeting birth rates I look around where I live and think jeez, no one's got the memo here.

Sorry folks - Gotta dash. I need to go out and I know it's going to take 10 mins to get off my drive.

Cannot see a HA taking over Bridge View, there are still 1000s of tones of excavation still to be done & imho the c/council inc the PC fucked this up, by believing the promise of 15 affordables within a luxury development, he was never going to build these, we all knew this at the time, as many objections stated.

I think it was quite a big HA, and friend was optimistic, but it was a few weeks ago now that I last heard any news and it may well have come to nothing.

Frankly, this is exactly the sort of mess that happens when governments make it virtually impossible for councils to refuse any application for new housing, and the so-called Nimbys (ie locals who point out what the problems might be)
aren't listened to.

If a developer promises to do all this stuff councils have no grounds to refuse, even if they know it's going to go badly wrong.

@TonTonMacoute Planning also needs to take on infrastructure issues, the local sewage plant hasn't been upgraded for decades, yet the parish has 100s more houses.

Our village, unbelievably, has 86 airbnb's, a few years ago, it had 2 B&Bs.... they can build all they like but until this addressed, nothing will change.

BridgeView was supported by the parish council and local labour councillor, despite its obvious flaws.

Why not ban Airbnb and the like? It has taken so many properties out of circulation for long term rent or to buy to live in. In London its really pushed up prices and most are owned by people who already own one property (boomers and the rich).

I don't disagree, I've been working in the area of planning for the last 10+ years, although more in Devon although I live in Cornwall.

The statutory consultees (in this case SWW) are sent planning applications and they simply reply that they have no objections to the application. It doesn't matter if it's complete bollocks, that what they say, and if they say that the planning committee cannot use that as a reason for refusal.

I have sat in planning meetings where the committee have wanted to refuse an application and the council lawyer has said 'If you refuse this, the applicant will appeal, and we cannot afford to deal with an appeal we will almost definitely lose'.

If a site has had more than one application (I'm not sure if this is the case with Bridge View) then it gets even worse as there has to be a planning inquiry which can cost millions. In this case a council may well decide to just not contest the appeal and permission will be granted.

I get so furious when I keep reading that NIMBY councils and NIMBYs who live locally are stopping new homes being built because it's virtually impossible with the system we have.

The PC only have an advisory role, they can approve or oppose an application, and their view will be taken into account, but it's not binding on the council planning committee. Calstock PC have not always had good experience with CCC, especially since it because a unitary authority. CCC do not come out at all well from this.

I agree Airbnb is a massive problem, there was talk of limiting it in some areas. It's so problematic now I think they have to something about it, but it is still an important source of tourist revenue, I don't think we can afford to stop it completely. And who will police it? Councils are already chronically short of money and Airbnb aren't going to, they don't give a damn.

We've had close to 2000 new homes built with more on the way, but absolutely no infrastructure.

We still have old Victorian sewers, crumbling gas pipes, no drainage upgrades, no extra water. Never mind phone, cable, internet being added. No road up grades, doctors, schools, hospitals places, nothing.

It took 1 hour and 45 mins to travel 1 mile tonight.

Still at least the council will get their 5k per new house build, plus all the council tax for doing absolutely nothing.

There are plenty of empty buildings already, brown field sites, waste land doing nothing, but no they want green fields.

Airbnb can be licensed, yes enforcement is an issue but charges for for a holiday licence will raise the funds for enforcement, then there is a tourist tax, used pretty much uniformly across mainland europe.

Yes i know SWW concerns are not binding but that needs to be changed so it is.

PC shouldn't have backed the development, regardless of how much influence the PC have, they are supposed to represent the interests of the Parish/Village, not those of the developer, esp as they know full well the additional sewage will be tankered out of the village dozens of tanker movements each day.

get involved then. Go to the council meetings, read up all the pros and cons and what people have said before, go into detail on why and wherefore etc etc
and encourage others to do the same.

But. We need housing so nimbyism is unwanted. What you DO need to do is make the council and whoever is responsible show the planning, and confirm budgets for appropriately improved roads, public transport, GP surgeries, school places etc etc.

but what are you actually doing about it? Whining on facebook or attending meetings? finding out what the actual plans are? canvassing your local MPs and councillors to improve the infrastructure at the same time?

If the infrastructure isn't being improved ask your council why. Councils charge a community levy on all new developments- it's A LOT of money.

Councils are getting the money and/or developers have contractual obligations. They simply need to spend the money where it's supposed to be spent.

Lol! Maybe read what has been written?

I do... and councils do not take into account of any infrastructure requirements, if they did, nothing at all would be built, do you think a developer can conjure up new GPs? Teachers? force SWW to build a new sewage plant when there is no additional land to build it on???? or that councils that have no money to fix pot holed roads, can now build new ones...... or that developers will honour their promises?

CL is tiny in terms of infrastructure, it simply gets swallowed up in other council spend.

Tavistock? 100s of homes built on the promise of a new/re opened rail line.... houses built, money for the rail line no longer available.

In areas such as Cornwall, many of the houses built end up as AirBnB's, do you not understand that if 86 properties are short term lets, then at least an additional 86 houses have to built, just to stand still, let alone provide for the homes for teachers carers healthcare staff needed for an aging population?

20-30 houses 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 nope. They’ll be thrown up in there hundreds and thousands. There will be nothing left eventually.

I wonder how they plan to tackle the shortage of dentists, GP’s and NHS waiting lists and at some point the shortage of food.

We are already one of the most nature depleted countries in Europe and this will only get worse as more and more houses are thrown up. My lovely small fishing town hometown is now being swamped with huge high rise blocks of extortionate flats. No infrastructure to support this so nobody can see a GP or get a school place and the roads are one giant car park. 500 flats with 100 odd parking spaces, it's insane. As pp have said there's housing enough and it's things like Airbnb and second homes that need looking at

Near where I live, the council approved new housing, apartments, a hotel in one place. But again a ridiculously low amount of parking. Not even close to no of houses proposed, let alone hotel guests, apartment owners etc. so doesn't account for most households having two cars . The council in their wisdom think that everyone can use the P&R to get about (great if you just want to go to the city centre) or use a bike. So all these extra vehicles that people need to get to all the other places they want to get to, will cause chaos in the surrounding communities. Whilst next to city, all other surrounding areas have no public transport etc. not to mention the prices are ridiculous,

@Alexandra2001

Everything you say is right but you're still just not getting the message that treating the council as your enemy in league with developers, and ranting about lack of infrastructure isn't going to get you anywhere. Councils are bound by the NPPF, which has a presumption in favour of development. They have no choice.

I'm not sure your comments on the profiteering of members of the PC is very helpful either. I don't know all of them but none of the members I know have a healthy BTL portfolio.

The rules must be changed at the top, but the government want to relax them. We have a shiny new MP from the governing party, I have already contacted her about this and I recommend you do too.

@TonTonMacoute Ranting? i'm stating facts, this is how MN works......

i know of 2 PC who have BTL's, i never said they were profiteering either, i don't know what rents they charge or if they have airbnb's but their opinions on the huge growth in the sector has been deafening, in contrast to their support of self builds for the wealthy.

Gelderd never came back to me, both before her win over the useless Murray and afterwards.... but i appreciate she has only just started.

I specifically asked her about housing and sewage.

The fact remains is that both the PC and local CC supported Bridge View, they shouldn't have, regardless of the planning decision outcome & its completely blown up in their faces, or rather the people who live close by (luckily not me)
A more recent PC member is aghast that the PC supported the original development, on grounds of affordability, location and sewage.

Its very obvious, given the costs to develop a former green house complex, in the centre of the village was going to be super high, believing that 15 affordables would be built (out of 34) was naive, they then went onto to support the reduction to 10.

Not entirely sure why you re now having a go at me ?

I don’t live anywhere near Cornwall. But out of interest I looked up Anna Gelderd just to see what a newly minted 2024 Labour MP might be like.

She has no record outside of experience of politics, charities or pressure groups.

I strongly suspect that (a) she will be utterly useless at representing local interests that go against party policy and (b) there are lots of Labour MPs like her.