Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Dave Beans

Bloody Nimby's

Recommended Posts

In a local rag...

Sherbs is a very desirable town...£243k for an average house (18 months mind you)...bloody madness...

http://www.thisisdorset.co.uk/news/269-new-homes-planned-town/article-3121032-detail/article.html

A PROPOSAL for a major housing development on the edge of Sherborne has been revived. Residents have been invited to a consultation at the Digby Hall in on Wednesday where developer Charles Church will unveil the latest designs for Barton Farm. The scheme is expected to include 269 homes, some of which will be affordable, play areas, a community hall, care home and space for businesses.

Three years have passed since Charles Church first consulted the public on its plans for the 36-acre site, which is bordered by the A30 Yeovil Road to the south, Marston Road to the east and Sheeplands Lane to the west. The scheme was shelved in 2009 because of the financial downturn but the site is still set aside for development within West Dorset District Council's local plan. The original consultation prompted protest from residents who felt the scale was too ambitious and out-of-keeping with the historic town.

But Charles Church managing director Simon Perks said the new scheme had taken into account people's views. He said: "We listened to some of the issues raised at the previous consultation, such as opposition to any four-storey development. As a result, four-storey development will not be incorporated into the plans."

There is no indication yet as to how much the new homes will cost. The average house price in Sherborne at the end of 2009 was £243,000. Sherborne Town Council's plans committee chairman Susan Greene welcomed the scheme's revival because it would address a shortage of affordable housing.

She said: "The previous plans included 81 affordable homes. I hope that figure will rise for the new scheme. The current rules mean 35 per cent of the homes must be affordable, but who knows how many will be affordable in the final scheme? The Government is changing the rules rapidly.

"A mother recently told me how all three of her children have had to move away from the town because they could not afford to buy a house here.

"New developments will not be welcomed by everyone but if they are needed, I hope we make sure they are as sustainable as possible."

However, Sherborne resident and member of the Dorset branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England Donald McNeil, who during the previous consultation period distributed 500 letters asking people to oppose the development, is not convinced.

He argued that the extra traffic would make surrounding roads more dangerous and felt such a large development within the town boundary would undermine Sherborne's heritage.

This week he said: "It is in a dangerous place. The A30 is a very busy road and the extra traffic coming out onto it would present a hazard."

Former CPRE chairman Dickie Bird said: "We are disappointed to see it back on the table. I would much rather see it stay as a farm. We're worried about any closure of the open gap of countryside between Sherborne and Yeovil."

The public exhibition on Wednesday, January 26, will run from 2pm until 8pm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The scheme is expected to include 269 homes, only some of which will be affordable, play areas, a community hall, care home and space for businesses."

Strange how inserting one word makes it more interesting to read.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBYism is a good example of how 'participatory democracy' sounds like a good idea.. but in actual practice doesn't work.

A society needs a certain minimum number of new housing units. Like those 3 sons were priced right out of their own home town and forced to move elsewhere. How is that for ruining heritage and community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBYism is a good example of how 'participatory democracy' sounds like a good idea.. but in actual practice doesn't work.

A society needs a certain minimum number of new housing units. Like those 3 sons were priced right out of their own home town and forced to move elsewhere. How is that for ruining heritage and community?

Sherborne also has a large influx of those in their "twilight" years...they see it as an idyllic area, and I've seen the amount (in the local papers) of fuss that they create when any type of new development is announced in the area. Its all self interest, and don't even consider the younger generation...As many have no children in the area, they don't worry about where their children can afford to buy/live.. they only worries is whether such a development will ruin their view/value of their house.

There's been uproar when any kind of chain store (such as Costa Coffee) has moved in...Interestingly, Sherborne has a very high rate of occupancy (something like only 2% of shops are empty)...I think that's the highest in the South West...

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherborne also has a large influx of those in their "twilight" years...they see it as an idyllic area, and I've seen the amount (in the local papers) of fuss that they create when any type of new development is announced in the area. Its all self interest, and don't even consider the younger generation...As many have no children in the area, they don't worry about where their children can afford to buy/live.. they only worries is whether such a development will ruin their view/value of their house.

There's been uproar when any kind of chain store (such as Costa Coffee) has moved in...Interestingly, Sherborne has a very high rate of occupancy (something like only 2% of shops are empty)...I think that's the highest in the South West...

It pisses me off when people like you pretend to know what types people are objecting and on what grounds. If you were more honest, you would admit that you are pandering to your own prejudice, namely of old people trying to keep the Barbarian young from encroaching on their idyll. Yeah, you read it in the papers. Yawn.

What a load of bigotted old bo11ocks.

Someone in my immediate family lives in a village in Berkshire. Number of households - 1,215. There was an application last year to build 400 new homes at one end of the village and 650 at the other. Both attracted vigorous opposition and both were turned down (though both are being appealed by the developers).

Is this NIMBY-ism? Or is it an unwillingness to see your small community overwhelmed by a near-100% increase in population, traffic, children needing schools, people needing medical treatment, people needing to use public transport etc, with an infrastructure that simply cannot take the extra strain. What do you do with an overnight doubling of traffic through an already congested village high street? There was no provision in the plans to augment the school or health centre, despite the massive influx of new people.

This is nothing to do with villages turning their noses up at incomers, or any other vision that feeds your prejudice -- it's all to do with objecting to an awful development that wlil significantly reduce the quality of life of the many families in this small community.

Of course there is such a thing as NIMBY-ism, but I don't understand why you can't see why poeple might object to a hige development going up in a small community. Why the feck do you expect people to smile and be happy about that?

And I don't for one moment think that you'd behave differently in their position.

Edited by ProdigalGnome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is such a thing as NIMBY-ism, but I don't understand why you can't see why poeple might object to a hige development going up in a small community. Why the feck do you expect people to smile and be happy about that?

And I don't for one moment think that you'd behave differently in their position.

+1

Didn't you know there are a large number of altruists on this forum. They don't mind your quality of life being trashed if it is for the greater good. However, if you fiddle with the interest on their savings....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pisses me off when people like you pretend to know what types people are objecting and on what grounds. If you were more honest, you would admit that you are pandering to your own prejudice, namely of old people trying to keep the Barbarian young from encroaching on their idyll. Yeah, you read it in the papers. Yawn.

What a load of bigotted old bo11ocks.

Someone in my immediate family lives in a village in Berkshire. Number of households - 1,215. There was an application last year to build 400 new homes at one end of the village and 650 at the other. Both attracted vigorous opposition and both were turned down (though both are being appealed by the developers).

Is this NIMBY-ism? Or is it an unwillingness to see your small community overwhelmed by a near-100% increase in population, traffic, children needing schools, people needing medical treatment, people needing to use public transport etc, with an infrastructure that simply cannot take the extra strain. What do you do with an overnight doubling of traffic through an already congested village high street? There was no provision in the plans to augment the school or health centre, despite the massive influx of new people.

This is nothing to do with villages turning their noses up at incomers, or any other vision that feeds your prejudice -- it's all to do with objecting to an awful development that wlil significantly reduce the quality of life of the many families in this small community.

Of course there is such a thing as NIMBY-ism, but I don't understand why you can't see why poeple might object to a hige development going up in a small community. Why the feck do you expect people to smile and be happy about that?

And I don't for one moment think that you'd behave differently in their position.

Thank heavens someone says it as it is.

Our area is threatened with an initial 10,000 units up to 32,000 units by 2050

Sure, we need additional housing but 10,000 in one hit without a single new road, bus stop, school, police station, crematorium, whatever.

This country is not here to house anyone in the world who wants to come here. Forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just that their reasons are so spurious.

Like 'it will destroy the green space between Sherborne and Yeovil' Yet if you type the street names in on maps you see that if anything, its infill building, and Sherbourne already extends 1km futher west towards yeovil than the western boundary of the proposed site.

Similarly near here they built 1000 homes or so in the middle of nowhere rather in town because of the traffic it would cause.

At least if it was built in town *some* homeowners would cycle or walk. Theyre a lot less likely to cycle or walk given they now live 10 miles from any shops or employment rather than in town.

Tbh id rather it if they were honest and admitted 'we're greedy selfish individuals and thats why we dont want any new homes'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone in my immediate family lives in a village in Berkshire. Number of households - 1,215. There was an application last year to build 400 new homes at one end of the village and 650 at the other. Both attracted vigorous opposition and both were turned down (though both are being appealed by the developers).

Is this NIMBY-ism? Or is it an unwillingness to see your small community overwhelmed by a near-100% increase in population, traffic, children needing schools, people needing medical treatment, people needing to use public transport etc, with an infrastructure that simply cannot take the extra strain. What do you do with an overnight doubling of traffic through an already congested village high street? There was no provision in the plans to augment the school or health centre, despite the massive influx of new people.

Most new development takes place in areas adjacent to towns. The whole planning system is biased in favour of large developers. I suspect the reason is they will make large contributions through S106 agreements to the infrastructure of the area.

There are very few single building plots in the area I live, I know I keep looking for one at a reasonable price, however if I wanted to build an estate of three or four hundred dwellings there is no shortage of large areas being sold of by the County Council.

Another issue is NIMBYS object to one or two houses being constructed near them. If planning was skewed in favour of small numbers of houses being built in around small villages then perhaps the number of large developments would be curtailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pisses me off when people like you pretend to know what types people are objecting and on what grounds. If you were more honest, you would admit that you are pandering to your own prejudice, namely of old people trying to keep the Barbarian young from encroaching on their idyll. Yeah, you read it in the papers. Yawn.

What a load of bigotted old bo11ocks.

Someone in my immediate family lives in a village in Berkshire. Number of households - 1,215. There was an application last year to build 400 new homes at one end of the village and 650 at the other. Both attracted vigorous opposition and both were turned down (though both are being appealed by the developers).

Is this NIMBY-ism? Or is it an unwillingness to see your small community overwhelmed by a near-100% increase in population, traffic, children needing schools, people needing medical treatment, people needing to use public transport etc, with an infrastructure that simply cannot take the extra strain. What do you do with an overnight doubling of traffic through an already congested village high street? There was no provision in the plans to augment the school or health centre, despite the massive influx of new people.

This is nothing to do with villages turning their noses up at incomers, or any other vision that feeds your prejudice -- it's all to do with objecting to an awful development that wlil significantly reduce the quality of life of the many families in this small community.

Of course there is such a thing as NIMBY-ism, but I don't understand why you can't see why poeple might object to a hige development going up in a small community. Why the feck do you expect people to smile and be happy about that?

And I don't for one moment think that you'd behave differently in their position.

Oh FFS get off your high horse...Yes the development your talking about is unacceptable for the settlement of that size, but with this proposal, your talking about putting in a development of 269 houses (including a number of desperately needed affordable / housing association homes) in a (edit: highly popular) town with a population of 10,000..

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pisses me off when people like you pretend to know what types people are objecting and on what grounds. If you were more honest, you would admit that you are pandering to your own prejudice, namely of old people trying to keep the Barbarian young from encroaching on their idyll. Yeah, you read it in the papers. Yawn.

What a load of bigotted old bo11ocks.

Someone in my immediate family lives in a village in Berkshire. Number of households - 1,215. There was an application last year to build 400 new homes at one end of the village and 650 at the other. Both attracted vigorous opposition and both were turned down (though both are being appealed by the developers).

Is this NIMBY-ism? Or is it an unwillingness to see your small community overwhelmed by a near-100% increase in population, traffic, children needing schools, people needing medical treatment, people needing to use public transport etc, with an infrastructure that simply cannot take the extra strain. What do you do with an overnight doubling of traffic through an already congested village high street? There was no provision in the plans to augment the school or health centre, despite the massive influx of new people.

This is nothing to do with villages turning their noses up at incomers, or any other vision that feeds your prejudice -- it's all to do with objecting to an awful development that wlil significantly reduce the quality of life of the many families in this small community.

Of course there is such a thing as NIMBY-ism, but I don't understand why you can't see why poeple might object to a hige development going up in a small community. Why the feck do you expect people to smile and be happy about that?

And I don't for one moment think that you'd behave differently in their position.

With the UK population increasing to over 70 million is it fair that the extra housing is placed only in areas of existing high population density? Is it fair that the quality of life for city dwellers gets worse while rural idylls are protected? You are all in this together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the UK population increasing to over 70 million is it fair that the extra housing is placed only in areas of existing high population density? Is it fair that the quality of life for city dwellers gets worse while rural idylls are protected? You are all in this together.

Who cares about the urban filth?

Gas them and use those houses for all I care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the UK population increasing to over 70 million is it fair that the extra housing is placed only in areas of existing high population density? Is it fair that the quality of life for city dwellers gets worse while rural idylls are protected? You are all in this together.

Yes the UK population grows by 300,000 a year. At the current rate of 2.4 inhabitants per dwelling.. we need to add 125,000 new housing units a year.

The current mentality in the UK is both violently againt building higher and against urban sprawl. But given a choice the reluctant choice has been urban sprawl.

I'm not sure higher density lowers the quality of life. People are willing to pay high prices to live right in the highest density areas for example. For example downtown New York city appears a very expensive place to buy housing.

Endless paved over cookie cutter surburbs of tightly packed houses.. and not enough road capacity and parking, sounds pretty bad. But tall buildings connected to major transport links, and the area having lots of greenspace.. people are willing to pay extra for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh FFS get off your high horse...Yes the development your talking about is unacceptable for the settlement of that size, but with this proposal, your talking about putting in a development of 269 houses (including a number of desperately needed affordable / housing association homes) in a (edit: highly popular) town with a population of 10,000..

This appears to be nimbyism as implied by the fact that the best excuse the chap leading the nimbys gives is some twaddle about he A30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the UK population grows by 300,000 a year. At the current rate of 2.4 inhabitants per dwelling.. we need to add 125,000 new housing units a year.

The current mentality in the UK is both violently againt building higher and against urban sprawl. But given a choice the reluctant choice has been urban sprawl.

I'm not sure higher density lowers the quality of life. People are willing to pay high prices to live right in the highest density areas for example. For example downtown New York city appears a very expensive place to buy housing.

Endless paved over cookie cutter surburbs of tightly packed houses.. and not enough road capacity and parking, sounds pretty bad. But tall buildings connected to major transport links, and the area having lots of greenspace.. people are willing to pay extra for that.

People will pay a premium to live in a high density area for various reasons. These may include employment, schools, proximity to family, availability of services, entertainment facilities etc. They do not pay a premium to live in high density areas for the joy of it. This is just a necessary evil for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This appears to be nimbyism as implied by the fact that the best excuse the chap leading the nimbys gives is some twaddle about he A30.

The only real problem would be road access...there is a narrow one-way single track road from the site, up to the traffic lights that connect directly on to the A30 (Trent Path Lane)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Trent+Path+Lane,+Sherborne&aq=0&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=14.149238,43.286133&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Trent+Path+Ln,+Sherborne,+Dorset+DT9+4,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.94894,-2.530886&spn=0.000926,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=50.94894,-2.530886&panoid=OfQbsdoEWBWA2iTQsWvj6g&cbp=12,342.21,,0,5

The land is behind Barton Gardens...

I'd personally prefer to see development put next to existing urban areas rather than little villages having their populations double in a few short years...

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The scheme is expected to include 269 homes, only some of which will be affordable, play areas, a community hall, care home and space for businesses."

As an Economics graduate, it still grates with me that there is such thing as designated "affordable housing".

If key workers cannot afford a place to live that is a shining big red alarm that the markets are not in equilibrium - in this case because:

- house prices are bid up artificially high by liar loans and ZIRP

- key workers are mostly public sector (nurses, teachers etc) and woefully underpaid

The government should be tackling those fundamental problems, not the symptoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an Economics graduate, it still grates with me that there is such thing as designated "affordable housing".

If key workers cannot afford a place to live that is a shining big red alarm that the markets are not in equilibrium - in this case because:

- house prices are bid up artificially high by liar loans and ZIRP

- key workers are mostly public sector (nurses, teachers etc) and woefully underpaid

The government should be tackling those fundamental problems, not the symptoms

Although wouldn't that include houses for rent as well? For instance,. In Poundbury, housing association homes are mixed in with "ordinary" housing...you can't tell which one's which...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an Economics graduate, it still grates with me that there is such thing as designated "affordable housing".

If key workers cannot afford a place to live that is a shining big red alarm that the markets are not in equilibrium - in this case because:

- house prices are bid up artificially high by liar loans and ZIRP

- key workers are mostly public sector (nurses, teachers etc) and woefully underpaid

The government should be tackling those fundamental problems, not the symptoms

You don't have to be an economics grad to be annoyed by this type of institutionalised word-wang, the word "affordable" in front of houses is like putting the word " non lethal" in front of the word "weapon", it's just a verbal slight of hand used to cover up the fact that housing is "unaffordable" and all weapons can be lethal in the right hands or circumstances..they really must think we are all stupid.

Imagine if this was used in another context like food or transport solutions, what would be the point in and unaffordable commodity in the first place? why would such a thing exist? ...it drives me mad to try and suspend all logic when thinking about how the English language has been hijacked by idiots to fool the sheeple into thinking that they have been thrown a bone by being allowed the luxury to have the one in a million chance of living in a house that *doesnt* financially ruin them for the rest of their lives. :angry:

I say a revolution to fight the stupid is long overdue.

Edited by JustAnotherProle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People will pay a premium to live in a high density area for various reasons. These may include employment, schools, proximity to family, availability of services, entertainment facilities etc. They do not pay a premium to live in high density areas for the joy of it. This is just a necessary evil for most.

Ya but a lot of those things like high quality schools, unique entertainment, unique stores and restaurants, incredible job opportunities.. are only available in a mass center.

A little rural town just isn't going to have the economic opportunity of a mass center. For example biotech companies can't locate in small areas because the talent pool isn't deep enough.

There has been a long term movement of people from rural areas to denser urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The scheme is expected to include 269 homes, only some of which will be affordable, play areas, a community hall, care home and space for businesses."

Strange how inserting one word makes it more interesting to read.

:)

The last time they built 'Affordable Homes' and sold them to locals, within 3 years every single house had been sold-on as holiday homes, and the original 'low earners' made a killing.

And I'm talking about a development just down the road from this proposal.

My own take on this, is that, Sherbourne is a town with unique historical Georgian properties, rather like Stamford in Lincolnshire. I would leave the town alone, because it's a jewel, surrounded by beautiful countryside. Just up the road is Yeovil - a dump. I'd go for re-development of Yeovil instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time they built 'Affordable Homes' and sold them to locals, within 3 years every single house had been sold-on as holiday homes, and the original 'low earners' made a killing.

And I'm talking about a development just down the road from this proposal.

My own take on this, is that, Sherbourne is a town with unique historical Georgian properties, rather like Stamford in Lincolnshire. I would leave the town alone, because it's a jewel, surrounded by beautiful countryside. Just up the road is Yeovil - a dump. I'd go for re-development of Yeovil instead.

Unfortunately they're based in two different counties, thus two different district & county councils, so there's no real "joined up thinking" between the two. Yeovil will be taking a massive hit over the next 15 years, with enough development that it will mean that the town will grow by a third...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For affordable housing the bottom 40% of the population needs somewhere to live too. Well I guess in Nimby utopia those people are just gassed, and foreign cheap replacements are bused in during the morning and bused out during the evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable Housing means cheaper housing for a few subsidized by others paying more. It leads to House price Inflation. My UK house is on a new estate, built to look like small villages with affordable housing mixed in. I have to say they did a great job, and you cannot tell which are affordable (or key worker) homes. The problem is the developer told us all that we were paying an extra £5-15£ for each private house to pay for the affordable house.......which creates HPI!

In the last phase (of 5, were 3) they increased the percentage of affordable housing needed. All the homes were sold off plan so the developer could not raise the price. Instead they reduced the spec of each house (think Kitchens, bathrooms, garden landscaping). Even after all this they still were struggling so they were forced to build a row of shops (we liked that) but changed them to have flats above. Now in that area there was already an oversupply of flats, so even the Housing Associations did not want them. They wanted 2/3 bed terraces.

They have sat empty since and now they have been bought by an overseas investor.

Crazy world....end affordable housing. Create a fair market economy.

N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.