Nimbys Trying To Turn Fields Into Village Greens

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Super Nimby re: village green app on beet field - "no one's got anything against social housing... we just don't to see anymore building on this part of the village..... We just want to keep walking on the fields....."

37.38 in

Re-listen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03c2zvw

[renting til I die]

Funny guy! I think we should knock all the houses down and live in tents or wigwams around a huge camp fire! Then we can run wild in the woods and the fields, catching small furry animals and picking berries to eat!

[@contradevian]

Super Nimby re: village green app on beet field - "no one's got anything against social housing... we just don't to see anymore building on this part of the village..... We just want to keep walking on the fields....."

37.38 in

Re-listen

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b03c2zvw

Aah another local dog toilet then. Not sure the farmer will be impressed.

If we could get dogs to wear nappies we could build more houses.

[singlemalt]

Sad and pathetic.

Forget employment, forget much needed affordable housing for families, the need to preserve a dog walk area trumps all else!

Why are people in this country all too often on the offensive about the land around them? Continually wanting to extend their reach and influence beyond what actually belongs to them. It must be something in the psyche from the former British colonial days.

[@contradevian]

Sad and pathetic.

Forget employment, forget much needed affordable housing for families, the need to preserve a dog walk area trumps all else!

Why are people in this country all too often on the offensive about the land around them? Continually wanting to extend their reach and influence beyond what actually belongs to them. It must be something in the psyche from the former British colonial days.

There was some protest going on in Stroud last night according to Twitter. The people of Stroud were defending badger sets against 'developers profits.'

How many badger sets were destroyed when their homes were built then, and anyway aren't we shooting badgers at the moment?

Even Scrumpy has got in on the act

http://www.dailymail...xury-homes.html

Edited October 8, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[Dorkins]

Why are people in this country all too often on the offensive about the land around them? Continually wanting to extend their reach and influence beyond what actually belongs to them. It must be something in the psyche from the former British colonial days.

The real landowners of Britain made previous generations of homeowners sweat to get a small brick building on a tiny patch of former beet field, and now those abused homeowners are emotionally damaged when it comes to issues of access to land and housing. They have internalised the false scarcity that was imposed upon them and now want to impose it on the next generation, with interest.

[singlemalt]

There was some protest going on in Stroud last night according to Twitter. The people of Stroud were defending badger sets against 'developers profits.'

How many badger sets were destroyed when their homes were built then, and anyway aren't we shooting badgers at the moment?

Even Scrumpy has got in on the act

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449221/Scrumpy-After-Swampy-meet-eco-warrior-living-150-year-old-apple-tree-wont-chopped-make-space-luxury-homes.html

Yes I saw that too. ONE apple tree. It's hardly an ancient giant redwood. To those people supposedly defending the badgers I'd ask how is a badger set any different to a rabbit warren or a rats nest or squirrel drey? all living creatures. I think people are always swayed by the cuteness factor or whether they're percieved as pests.

[Riedquat]

Here we go, the usual HPC crying when anyone isn't keen in turning everywhere into another large, bland sh1thole. If you truly believe that there's a housing supply issue then attack population increase rather than championing the one-way street of building our way into a more unnatractive and overdeveloped and hence less pleasant to live in country.

[tomandlu]

Here we go, the usual HPC crying when anyone isn't keen in turning everywhere into another large, bland sh1thole. If you truly believe that there's a housing supply issue then attack population increase rather than championing the one-way street of building our way into a more unnatractive and overdeveloped and hence less pleasant to live in country.

A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B...

[singlemalt]

Here we go, the usual HPC crying when anyone isn't keen in turning everywhere into another large, bland sh1thole. If you truly believe that there's a housing supply issue then attack population increase rather than championing the one-way street of building our way into a more unnatractive and overdeveloped and hence less pleasant to live in country.

Really?

The Gloucestershire development is 12 houses (twelve) hardly a large development. Population increase? If not for inward migration the UK population was broadly static and in many locales actually falling rapidly. We have 80 years of life if we're lucky and eveyone has to live somewhere. It just irks me when people are so up in arms against the very thing they enjoy - a decent house.

Development has always happened throughout history and it hardly leaves a trace hence why I'm sat in a 5yr old apartment just 1/2 a mile from a cistercian abbey and 2 miles from the remains of an old roman fort. I'd hazzard a guess that the building I'm in will be long gone in 50yrs without a trace.

[@contradevian]

Here we go, the usual HPC crying when anyone isn't keen in turning everywhere into another large, bland sh1thole. If you truly believe that there's a housing supply issue then attack population increase rather than championing the one-way street of building our way into a more unnatractive and overdeveloped and hence less pleasant to live in country.

IMO opinion the way to go is 'self build.' NIMBY's are only too willing to play the 'developers profits' card. I'd rather buy a plot of land, and order my house from a brochure.

I agree a lot of modern housing development is unattractive. I dare say streets and streets of drab terraces were unattractive to Victorians and Edwardians, but they are very much a product of false land scarcity, rentierism and land hoarding which are dominant forces in the UK.

Edited October 8, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[Billy soy]

Here we go, the usual HPC crying when anyone isn't keen in turning everywhere into another large, bland sh1thole. If you truly believe that there's a housing supply issue then attack population increase rather than championing the one-way street of building our way into a more unnatractive and overdeveloped and hence less pleasant to live in country.

-1

[fluffy666]

Here we go, the usual HPC crying when anyone isn't keen in turning everywhere into another large, bland sh1thole. If you truly believe that there's a housing supply issue then attack population increase rather than championing the one-way street of building our way into a more unnatractive and overdeveloped and hence less pleasant to live in country.

I'm disturbed by continuing population increase, especially when driven by large scale immigration - never mind the housing, we have a couple of million unemployed already..

On the other hand, we are 1-2 million housing units short right now.

As far as unattractive and overdeveloped goes.. we have land, and if you don't believe me than I refer you to Google Maps. The only place you can accuse of having a genuine land shortage is inside the M25. I do think that a quid pro quo of loosening planning laws would be an insistence on larger plots, bigger room sizes and some thought going into the architecture of new builds so that they actually look appealing (how you legislate for that I don't know..).

Having said that, I'm an unashamed futurist, I'm perfectly happy to see modern structures coexist with a man-made agricultural landscape. There's no natural landscape in England anyway.

[Guest]

There was some protest going on in Stroud last night according to Twitter. The people of Stroud were defending badger sets against 'developers profits.'

How many badger sets were destroyed when their homes were built then, and anyway aren't we shooting badgers at the moment?

Even Scrumpy has got in on the act

http://www.dailymail...xury-homes.html

If I was in that house overlooking that pillock in his tree, I would get a super soaker & a gallon of petrol. Once the trunk was well soaked I'd follow up with a catapult and some lit firelighters.

Edit to add: you are NOT helping society, or nature. You are preventing normal people affording normal houses on normal wages. Get a job and F**K off.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Guest

[motch]

I'm disturbed by continuing population increase, especially when driven by large scale immigration - never mind the housing, we have a couple of million unemployed already..

On the other hand, we are 1-2 million housing units short right now.

As far as unattractive and overdeveloped goes.. we have land, and if you don't believe me than I refer you to Google Maps. The only place you can accuse of having a genuine land shortage is inside the M25. I do think that a quid pro quo of loosening planning laws would be an insistence on larger plots, bigger room sizes and some thought going into the architecture of new builds so that they actually look appealing (how you legislate for that I don't know..).

Having said that, I'm an unashamed futurist, I'm perfectly happy to see modern structures coexist with a man-made agricultural landscape. There's no natural landscape in England anyway.

nearer ten million not working.

there are also a heck of a lot of golf courses inside the M25

how about some 4mx3m micro homes like in the Gadget Man show last night? could get loads inside the M25

[The Knimbies who say No]

Here we go, the usual HPC crying when anyone isn't keen in turning everywhere into another large, bland sh1thole. If you truly believe that there's a housing supply issue then attack population increase rather than championing the one-way street of building our way into a more unnatractive and overdeveloped and hence less pleasant to live in country.

Apparently(according to Nick Boles) around 60% of the housing need in the UK arises from rising elderly populations and divorce, and 40% from immigration.

We've been here before though, unless you want to turf people out, or are satisfied for people to be living in over cramped conditions, there is a housing crisis to be dealt with now. Which avenue do you favour for dealing with it?

[motch]

Funny guy! I think we should knock all the houses down and live in tents or wigwams around a huge camp fire! Then we can run wild in the woods and the fields, catching small furry animals and picking berries to eat!

could try buying the field next to the houses and give the wigwam bit a go

[fluffy666]

nearer ten million not working.

there are also a heck of a lot of golf courses inside the M25

how about some 4mx3m micro homes like in the Gadget Man show last night? could get loads inside the M25

My solution/idea..

Every local council is required to provide 1 building plot per 100 population per year - with services (i.e. electricity, water, sewage, roads)

These will be sold for 10 year's council tax, based on the size of house on the plot (i.e. if Council Tax for the plot is expected to be £1500 pa, the plot would cost £15,000)

You'd be able to build whatever you liked in it (with height/shading limits, so you didn't cover the plot with a 10 storey block).

Only councils with >75% urban area would be exempt. You would be expected to start building within 6 months and would not be allowed to sell or rent out for at least 5 years; you'd only be allowed a second plot if there were spares after people who had never had a plot were served.

This would hopefully kickstart an industry that built houses on these plots to order, flat-pack houses, etc.

[Kurt Barlow]

Sad and pathetic.

Forget employment, forget much needed affordable housing for families, the need to preserve a dog walk area trumps all else!

Why are people in this country all too often on the offensive about the land around them? Continually wanting to extend their reach and influence beyond what actually belongs to them. It must be something in the psyche from the former British colonial days.

Just as bad here in Western Australia. I work in Environmental Regulation (which is largely working with Industry) and am deluged with nimby type complaints to get virtually every form of industry shut down in the locality whether it be feedlots, quarry's, dairies, wood yards, etc etc. This is in provincal towns that often struggle to maintain a critical mass.

These same nimby's are of course the first to complain about declining services in the same towns they are trying to preserve as of 1897.

[fluffy666]

Just as bad here in Western Australia. I work in Environmental Regulation (which is largely working with Industry) and am deluged with nimby type complaints to get virtually every form of industry shut down in the locality whether it be feedlots, quarry's, dairies, wood yards, etc etc. This is in provincal towns that often struggle to maintain a critical mass.

These same nimby's are of course the first to complain about declining services in the same towns they are trying to preserve as of 1897.

Yes, but you have to admit that Western Australia is short of space, some people barely have a square kilometer to themselves.

[@contradevian]

Just as bad here in Western Australia. I work in Environmental Regulation (which is largely working with Industry) and am deluged with nimby type complaints to get virtually every form of industry shut down in the locality whether it be feedlots, quarry's, dairies, wood yards, etc etc. This is in provincal towns that often struggle to maintain a critical mass.

These same nimby's are of course the first to complain about declining services in the same towns they are trying to preserve as of 1897.

This is the problem when you encourage a home owning democracy, but at the same time drive up a bubble with a significant amount of these home owners, somehow detached from economic reality, indeed insulated from it.

If you are going to have a home owning democracy, keep them busy and their houses worthless.

Was reading on a forum about the redevelopment of my Northern town in the 60/70's. Literally laid waste to the town to build a ring road etc, and people offered literally a few hundred quid for their homes (if they owned them) if they didn't they were moved into new Council property.

Now redevelopment is no longer affordable due to the cost of paying off the home owners, who think their lottery numbers have come up.

Edited October 8, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[Riedquat]

Apparently(according to Nick Boles) around 60% of the housing need in the UK arises from rising elderly populations and divorce, and 40% from immigration.

We've been here before though, unless you want to turf people out, or are satisfied for people to be living in over cramped conditions, there is a housing crisis to be dealt with now. Which avenue do you favour for dealing with it?

There is no dealing with anything that involves a continual population increase. All you can do then is kick the problem down the road whilst increasingly trashing the place in the mean time. What I want is zero increase (preferably a steady decrease), and once it's established that we're not heading down that one-way street it'll be worth considering what damage is necessary to support it. I've no interest whatsoever in entertaining any ideas from people who refuse to entertain at least a steady position. Even then some degree of cramping is a lesser evil than a significant building increase. Anyway, if divorce is a big factor then that's fewer people per household, so smaller houses are needed...

So whilst everything that gets built makes the country that little more unpleasant to live in (combination of the overall density and the fact that most of what gets built is soulless crap) that's a price I can accept IF it's not continual. Everything makes it look as if it is though. Even then I'd make an effort to increase development on the least attractive areas first, rather than drag everything down.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Riedquat

[tomandlu]

Even then some degree of cramping is a lesser evil than a significant building increase.

Seriously? WTF?

[DeepLurker]

Apparently(according to Nick Boles) around 60% of the housing need in the UK arises from rising elderly populations and divorce, and 40% from immigration.

...

That's interesting - do you have a link for that?

[DeepLurker]

My solution/idea..

Every local council is required to provide 1 building plot per 100 population per year - with services (i.e. electricity, water, sewage, roads)

These will be sold for 10 year's council tax, based on the size of house on the plot (i.e. if Council Tax for the plot is expected to be £1500 pa, the plot would cost £15,000)

You'd be able to build whatever you liked in it (with height/shading limits, so you didn't cover the plot with a 10 storey block).

Only councils with >75% urban area would be exempt. You would be expected to start building within 6 months and would not be allowed to sell or rent out for at least 5 years; you'd only be allowed a second plot if there were spares after people who had never had a plot were served.

This would hopefully kickstart an industry that built houses on these plots to order, flat-pack houses, etc.

Alternative idea: council spending is funded by a council tax that is collected by the councils, and kept by the councils. Ergo the councils have a big vested interest in getting more houses in their district (in the current setup they see limited benefits from new construction). Thoughts?