Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Steppenpig

Nimby Support Group

Recommended Posts

I don't like cars, I don't like roads, I don't like conurbations, I don't like people building on the green belt or in the countryside. I like bicycles and bicycle lanes. And trains. I like trees and flowers and bunnies. And grehound tracks. I like it that English people only have small houses to live in, but I wish they weren't so ugly. I quite like airporrts too though, and some modern buildings are ok.

And i don't even have a back yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like cars, I don't like roads, I don't like conurbations, I don't like people building on the green belt or in the countryside. I like bicycles and bicycle lanes. And trains. I like trees and flowers and bunnies. And grehound tracks. I like it that English people only have small houses to live in, but I wish they weren't so ugly. I quite like airporrts too though, and some modern buildings are ok.

And i don't even have a back yard.

I don't like cars either (never owned one), and generally ride a bike, but I do like cities and would like to see everyone adequately housed. Don't see many trees, flowers and bunnies in green belts. Mostly monoculture fields of minimal aesthetic value. Protection should be given to national parks, sssi's, and perhaps woodland, but everything else should be fair game. If we built houses on bigger plots as they used to, there would be plenty of room for trees, flowers etc in gardens.

I'd like to see higher standards of new build and I think that would be best achieved by seriously encouraging self build. I'd love to build my own passive house, but it's incredibly difficult given NIMBYism and the mega-inflated cost of land with planning permission.

If you don't have a back yard, perhaps you'll find this acronym useful: Banana - build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge areas of monoculture are all part of the same problem, and if you build on them you're just going to have to find somewhere else to grow food. As I've said in a couple of other threads best to stop needing to continually build more and more, then you can at least provide sufficient for everyone without concern about another lot coming along a few years later, then another, then another, everything sliding towards more heavily developed. You've still got the cities for people who like cities, a lot of people prefer something a bit quieter. A heavily-developed country with a few national park etc. islands sounds like hell. Ultimately I feel that we shouldn't be saying "there are still some attractive bits around, so that'll do" but aim to have as much attractive as possible.

What we can't do with the number of people and the amount of land in the UK is give everyone their ideal environment, which is why population increase is madness that's affecting quality of life (although we could do rather better with making the best of the situation we are in).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people should build on brownfield sites only. But not the ones near me.

And I hope the government helps my children get on the ladder soon.

Would like to downsize, but the nice government gives me help with my bills so no hurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.27% of England is built on so far - could pentuplicate every current road and building and still have 88% for food and scenery.

If you take the rather meaningless measure that equates all the bits of not actually concreted urban area such as gardens and verges as being comparable with the remotest part of Pennines.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would extend the London green belt as far as the M25. It's nice to have but something of an anachronism if we are to allow the population to grow so significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would extend the London green belt as far as the M25. It's nice to have but something of an anachronism if we are to allow the population to grow so significantly.

Then what? You'll eventually need to increase it again if the population continues growing. If you're saying "do that in order to provide enough and stop population growth" I'd agree that it might be a worthwhile necessary evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what? You'll eventually need to increase it again if the population continues growing. If you're saying "do that in order to provide enough and stop population growth" I'd agree that it might be a worthwhile necessary evil.

We need a million homes today. To what extent are you willing to punish your children and theirs for the near criminal enterprise in deception that was immigration policy in the last x years?

Or, which people will you be inviting to leave, forcibly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that the pro-nimby posts on this thread (including the OP) are being sarcastic, but I could be wrong and, anyway, I'm going to add a genuine pro-nimby post...

I would like to see green-field projects generally limited to low-density housing except at the boundary of large conurbations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a million homes today. To what extent are you willing to punish your children and theirs for the near criminal enterprise in deception that was immigration policy in the last x years?

Or, which people will you be inviting to leave, forcibly?

Did you miss the bit about stopping population growth, which is pretty much immigration, and building enough to house the current population? Funny how I've had the same response from HPC before when I've suggested that I accept the need for more building, but would much rather we didn't keep pushing that need upwards. HPC, where a post that regards building as a necessary evil gets treated as if you want people freezing in the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the bit about stopping population growth, which is pretty much immigration, and building enough to house the current population? Funny how I've had the same response from HPC before when I've suggested that I accept the need for more building, but would much rather we didn't keep pushing that need upwards. HPC, where a post that regards building as a necessary evil gets treated as if you want people freezing in the streets.

If we are getting a disproportionate number of immigrants, then I'd rather see us fix whatever perverse incentive creates the situation rather than close down our borders, but I must admit I waver in this regard.

That aside, we seem to be largely trying to exist in a housing stock inventory dating from the '50s. I'm all in favour of being a bit precious about our green and pleasant land, but not to the extent that it become a mindless tool to prevent seemingly any new housing.

Edited by tomandlu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are getting a disproportionate number of immigrants, then I'd rather see us fix whatever perverse incentive creates the situation rather than close down our borders, but I must admit I waver in this regard.

I think that some of both is needed. After all even without any obvious incentives whatsoever I can think of plenty of worse places in the world to live so people will still want to come here.

That aside, we seem to be largely trying to exist in a housing stock inventory dating from the '50s. I'm all in favour of being a bit precious about our green and pleasant land, but not to the extent that it become a mindless tool to prevent seemingly any new housing.

I agree, somewhat, although as I've said we've reached the point where I find it hard to view any new housing as more than a necessary evil - but the key word is "necessary". I stand firm in my opinion that this would be a pleasanter country to live in if it had a lower population density. That leaves me with the position I stated earlier, we need to build enough to house the people here and (details to be worked out) stop the population increasing. My ideal would be a decrease but I can't see how that could be achieved ethically, which leaves me at that. What annoys me are the people who only appear interested in treating the symptoms (lack of housing) without bothering about the cause (too many people), and who don't seem to care less about them getting built to the point where they seem gleeful at the idea of green belt getting build on, not because they feel we need the housing but because they enjoy green belt getting built on.

It would probably help if what new housing we did build wasn't crap and characterless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the bit about stopping population growth, which is pretty much immigration, and building enough to house the current population? Funny how I've had the same response from HPC before when I've suggested that I accept the need for more building, but would much rather we didn't keep pushing that need upwards. HPC, where a post that regards building as a necessary evil gets treated as if you want people freezing in the streets.

Fair play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that the pro-nimby posts on this thread (including the OP) are being sarcastic, but I could be wrong and, anyway, I'm going to add a genuine pro-nimby post...

I would like to see green-field projects generally limited to low-density housing except at the boundary of large conurbations.

I would agree with this, asusming that the provision for low-density housing involved making planning permission for self-builds / agricultural ties much easier to obtain, because there seems to be a problem with housing in agricultural areas being disproportionately taken up by holiday homes, retirees and long distance commuters. I'm a Londoner so this isn't firsthand experience but it does seem to be the case from property TV shows, a whole host of books and websites on how to get around planning laws if you want to start an agricultural business on land which doesn't already include a dwelling, and unforunately hostility to Londoners. It seems like quite a few people who work or who want to work in agricultural areas are having problems housing themselves not just because the current stock is too expensive but because it's already taken by people who aren't working in the local economy. Who maintains the farmland when the farm house has been portioned off and sold to the highest (NIMBY) bidder? While a HPC would go some way towards correcting this I don't know whether pricing workers into the local housing stock would be enough when it's already occupied as the number of people who might lose their houses in a crash, while large, doesn't look to be that high in relation to the total amount of housing stock. There definitely needs to some kind of movement in planning terms to correct this imbalance, although how you protect the new stock from moving back out of the hands of local workers in the long term I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like cars, I don't like roads, I don't like conurbations, I don't like people building on the green belt or in the countryside. I like bicycles and bicycle lanes. And trains. I like trees and flowers and bunnies. And grehound tracks. I like it that English people only have small houses to live in, but I wish they weren't so ugly. I quite like airporrts too though, and some modern buildings are ok.

And i don't even have a back yard.

The only bit of the OP I agree with is the bit wishing that the English weren't so ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like cars, I don't like roads, I don't like conurbations, I don't like people building on the green belt or in the countryside. I like bicycles and bicycle lanes. And trains. I like trees and flowers and bunnies. And grehound tracks. I like it that English people only have small houses to live in, but I wish they weren't so ugly. I quite like airporrts too though, and some modern buildings are ok.

And i don't even have a back yard.

I like roads; it's just a pity about the cars. Bunnies are OK in my book (and back yard), too.

lilrabbit.jpg

Also Cities. But not bunnies in cities.

nyrabbit.jpg

I will admit to being a nimby to the extent that if somebody built here

myard.jpg

I'd have to find another paradise to rent. Which would be a pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   225 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.