To find the extent of planned housebuilding terrifying?

[IRememberWhenThisWasFields]

NM for this as I don't want my previous posts to be too outing of where I live. Hope that's okay.

The background is that I live in a semi-rural area in England, in a village of approximately 2,000 people. It doesn't even have a shop. Our nearest town is about 10-15 mins walk away, population already around 20k. In recent years the town has increasingly encroached on our village.

Currently, the local council is having a consultation of where future housebuilding should take place, and I'm honestly so shocked at the amount of land that has been offered up.

Farmland on what feels like all directions has been earmarked for largescale future development. I know that we have a housing crisis in this country, but I feel like I could cry.

Many of the areas are where I've spent countless happy hours walking and where I regularly see owls, hares, deer and foxes. It's well known that access to nature and green spaces is hugely beneficial to one's mental health, and to think that these wonderful quiet, peaceful, green areas could be lost for more houses, traffic, pollution, noise, likely crime...it's just so sad.

And of course, it all comes from the national government and their target of wanting to build over one million more houses this government, no matter where they're placed, and seemingly with very little thought for infrastructure or how small communities are changing almost beyond all recognition. How people who've lived in these communities for generations are increasingly turning to anti-immigration rhetoric from parties like Reform, in part due to their areas changing so rapidly.

All anyone can say is "we need more houses"...yes, but is the only solution the increased destruction of our countryside? When will it end?

I know people currently searching for a house or who are used to living in built up areas will have no sympathy with this. I know I'll already get the predictable response of "well, your house probably used to be a field", ignoring the simple fact that we now have far less space than we did 50 or 100 years ago.

But AIBU, or does anyone else feel a similar way to me?

Look at how many houses were built in each decade of the 20th C, especially post-WW2 and then compare that to now.
We’re adjacent to an area that had 2000 houses built in the early 2000s and the second phase of another 2000 is underway, to be completed by 2031.
We’d rather have kept our green fields and small village community feel, but people have got to live somewhere.

Well round here there are two big new build estates plus one being planned. I’m not particularly fussed, but there are also lots of houses on sale that have been on the market a long time at unaffordable prices. So it’s not that there’s physically nowhere for people to live, it’s that they can’t afford them.

By affordable housing I mean official schemes like this: https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/buying/what-is-affordable-housing/

not just housing that is cheap.

While this thread is already full of nonsensical arguments about second homes and there being no green space left.

There is some truth in the fact that building a few hundred houses here and there near small communities is plain stupid. What’s required is the building of whole new towns. With hundreds of thousands of houses, brand new roads, train lines, schools, hospitals.

We can but dream. The ruling classes, MPs, civil servants are thick as pig shit. They couldn’t build organize a piss up in a brewery, let alone build new towns.

Taxing Airbnbs will solve the housing crisis.

Comedy gold.

When you look at black mould, Grenfell and cladding, RAAC and the general state of new builds in this country, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some true horrors are going to be built to meet these targets and that some pretty terrible scandals are going to hit down the line.

On the other hand more homes are needed now.

Not sure what the answer is to be honest.

So why are the developers building these houses, if they can’t sell them. Are you saying that they are deliberately trying to lose money on them.

Affordable housing refers to specific schemes (or at least in my local area it does, but I don’t want to link to my councils website). It’s things like social housing, shared ownership etc, not just generally houses that are cheap.

Also stops them being snapped up by landlords etc.

Still waiting for someone to come along and tell us where they think upto a million new immigrants a year are going to live. What do they think is the answer if not mass housebuilding.

It’s got nothing to do with living in a quiet village OP, NOBODY wants these houses built in their area. Even if you live in a city then I doubt that the prospect of it becoming even more crowded is welcome, so where do we put them?

It is really bad OP. Same here lots of greenfield development without any thoughts of schools or GPs or roads.
I agree we need much more housing but it should be brownfield and ex-industrial sites, but sadly that's not where people (me included) want to live.

Because they're utterly corrupt, greedy organisations in league with local councils, who have little concern for the effect their developments will have on an area, and just want to make as much money as they possibly can.

I don’t blame you for feeling that way. I am the opposite and I live in central London.

My mum lives in a rural area (NW) where a lot of planning for housing is refused. Can’t your elected representatives step in or are they puppets of the developers and landowners?

So they can sell them.

Your argument is really confused. One minute you say developers are building houses they cannot sell. They next you say they are making big profits. Which is it?

It’s partly this, and also new housing brings in more council tax- particularly when the councils then refuse to actually provide many basic services to these homes. For local officials with income pressures, approving 2000 new homes worth £2k a year in tax on an ongoing basis is a quick win.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Where I live the new build housing advertised is mainly 3-4 bed family homes at £300-400k. So definitely not housing for the poor! I know there has to be some affordable housing included but no idea of the numbers

I agree with you that anyone can buy whatever land or property they like, that is fine. Everyone has the right to buy whatever they want.

In the scenario I mentioned, the person had been complaining about the unaffordability of 4 bed houses in the area, and it was absolutely ludicrous that they were saying at the same time that they needed all of those extra bedrooms - despite them being clearly out of their budget. The housing stock of large family homes is being taken up by people who don't fill the bedrooms. That's why social housing have introduced a bedroom tax.

So basically you recognise we need more houses but don't want them near you.

We don't just need houses for immigrants...

Hi @IRememberWhenThisWasFields You've answered a few posts but haven't responded to the simple question - what is your solution? It is a fact that we need more homes, so what do you suggest?

It's not popular to say on MN, but levels of immigration (legal, I'm talking about) are sky-high, although down slightly from the Boris peak. Unfortunately, keeping everyone housed seems to involve covering the countryside in Barratt boxes if we want to keep welcoming a new Birmingham worth of people annually.

Disclaimer - no slight on the immigrants themselves, who have arrived perfectly legally.

If you already can’t get your kids into the local school or an appointment with the GP it’s very sensible to worry about loads of new houses springing up with no new infrastructure to support it and nature being destroyed along the way.

Where are you with overflowing schools? Much of the country has falling rolls. An ageing population puts more strain on GPs.

hence why I've not moved to live in the middle of a city centre.

cities have changed too though

What about these ideas?
No greenfield development until ALL brownfield sites have been redeveloped for a start.
No rural development unless there are jobs locally and the infrastructure for people: to shop locally, use public transport 24/7, local schools, hospitals……….
All developments must have a mix of sizes and have a higher percentage (than currently) of social housing, without exception.
You can replace houses but once you farmland is gone it’s gone. You can’t grow food on a tarmac road either. If we are not careful there will be too many houses and no food.

So what you’re saying is literally build the houses … but not in my back yard 😂

There are simply too many people

What do you suggest

I think you can agree there should be more houses and feel sad that beautiful countryside that you know is destroyed to create them. It’s fine to think both things. Most of us do not work in planning policy so our view is bound to be subjective.