Mumsnet, Nimbys

[giesahoose]

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a2024690-to-be-absolutely-in-tears-about-new-development

1000 houses being built next to them.

[Welshasylumseeker]

Wonder how many of the nodders living in their twee "farm cottages" actually, er, work the land? Most are part of the problem by pricing out the locals in pursuit of their rural idyl

[Dorkins]

If you read the thread it turns out this development is a mile from her house and on the other side of a hill so she won't even be able to see it.

[@contradevian]

Forced to live within a mile of anyone else. Terrible.

[interestrateripoff]

Poor not one mention of sex or beakers.

Very disappointed.

[olliegog]

not a 'boomer' then

but she lives in an 'old farmhouse' (probably sold a flat in London to buy it)

[erat_forte]

Wonder how many of the nodders living in their twee "farm cottages" actually, er, work the land? Most are part of the problem by pricing out the locals in pursuit of their rural idyl

Very true

But in real life, who needs 1000 houses all to themselves?

Better to grant 1000 planning permissions to individuals.

[tomandlu]

In fairness, the responses represent a wide range of opinion. I'm not even appalled by the OP - her reaction is perfectly human, it just shouldn't form the basis of any objection to the development.

That aside, it is, quite probably, a relatively large development of crappy modern builds in an area that could better accommodate a more measured approach. Schools always seem to be an after-thought, leading to small country roads blocked twice a day by a massive commute of both workers and school-runs.

[tomandlu]

Poor not one mention of sex or beakers.

Very disappointed.

I preferred the fat-balls thread.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/a2017083-He-has-eaten-a-fat-ball

[@contradevian]

That aside, it is, quite probably, a relatively large development of crappy modern builds in an area that could better accommodate a more measured approach. Schools always seem to be an after-thought, leading to small country roads blocked twice a day by a massive commute of both workers and school-runs.

Yeh, the planners won't have thought of that.

[hellsbells]

In fairness, the responses represent a wide range of opinion. I'm not even appalled by the OP - her reaction is perfectly human, it just shouldn't form the basis of any objection to the development.

That aside, it is, quite probably, a relatively large development of crappy modern builds in an area that could better accommodate a more measured approach. Schools always seem to be an after-thought, leading to small country roads blocked twice a day by a massive commute of both workers and school-runs.

Agree - there's a whole range of views there, and the OP actually agrees that she is a NIMBY. Her distress is understandable even if it is selfish or irrational. If I lived in a crap slave box on a big estate I wouldn't give two hoots about another development next door but if I lived in some lush rural idyll I probably would.

[Wurzel Of Highbridge]

It's the government high density targets that are to blame for 99.9% of the NIMBYISM.

We need to campaign to get it changed asap.

Nobody is going to complain of low density detached/executive/semis like was being built in the 80's is plonked on the outskirts, however they will complain if a high density mix of flats/affordable and shoe-boxes without parking is build near them.

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/saved_and_other_policies/additional_planning_policies/further_planning_information/pps3_and_saved_policies_advice.aspx

4. Using land effectively and efficiently

Paragraphs 45 to 51 deal with the effective and efficient use of land.

Planning applications for new housing should therefore achieve the following:

New housing developments should re-use land effectively and at an appropriate density (30 dwellings per hectare should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place).

(Checklist: Is the density at least 30 dwellings per hectare, if not does the character of the area dictate a lower density.)

So in theory if you were building a few houses tacked onto the end of a low density area you could build low density. If you are building a whole new estate then you must build at least one dwelling per 333.33sqm.

By the time you have taken that large green 'shared' area into account (that nobody uses except for letting their dogs shit on) and roads, you are left with more like 150sqm per house which as you can see leaves you with a shoebox, without room for parking.

I would suggest that 15 dwellings per hectare is perfectly dense enough in the suburbs and that 30 dwellings per hectare is fine for inner town/city areas.

Attempting to cram 30 dwellings per hectare in rural areas and outer suburbs is pointless and damaging.

[The Knimbies who say No]

It's the government high density targets that are to blame for 99.9% of the NIMBYISM.

We need to campaign to get it changed asap.

Nobody is going to complain of low density detached/executive/semis like was being built in the 80's is plonked on the outskirts, however they will complain if a high density mix of flats/affordable and shoe-boxes without parking is build near them.

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/planning/spatial_planning/saved_and_other_policies/additional_planning_policies/further_planning_information/pps3_and_saved_policies_advice.aspx

So in theory if you were building a few houses tacked onto the end of a low density area you could build low density. If you are building a whole new estate then you must build at least one dwelling per 333.33sqm.

By the time you have taken that large green 'shared' area into account (that nobody uses except for letting their dogs shit on) and roads, you are left with more like 150sqm per house which as you can see leaves you with a shoebox, without room for parking.

I would suggest that 15 dwellings per hectare is perfectly dense enough in the suburbs and that 30 dwellings per hectare is fine for inner town/city areas.

Attempting to cram 30 dwellings per hectare in rural areas and outer suburbs is pointless and damaging.

Agreed regarding the available plot sizes, but this of course raises the nimby heckles even more- the 1,000 homes now takes up double the land previously needed under current regulations.

Some people just don't want building nearby, end of story. You could build them underground and they'd be complaining about construction traffic as a means of stopping it.

Any means of argument necessary to halt development is all they give a sh*t about, whether it is based in reality is beside the point.

[billybong]

In fairness, the responses represent a wide range of opinion. I'm not even appalled by the OP - her reaction is perfectly human, it just shouldn't form the basis of any objection to the development.

That aside, it is, quite probably, a relatively large development of crappy modern builds in an area that could better accommodate a more measured approach. Schools always seem to be an after-thought, leading to small country roads blocked twice a day by a massive commute of both workers and school-runs.

There was a time when the school runs were a routine that didn't intrude much in the day to day running of most towns and villages but since the economic collapse there's been more and more parking restrictions (double yellow lines, parking bays, residents permits, wardens etc - you name it) everywhere to help to fund councils (and cronys) wages and pensions.

Even before the new developments the school run now means that everyone else wanting a parking space is put on hold until the school run clears.

It's can't really be described as any sort of sensible thought out worthwhile planning. Self serving self interest by the councils yes - but planning no.

Edited March 14, 2014 by billybong

[tomandlu]

Yeh, the planners won't have thought of that.

Oh, they think about it, but the projections always seem a tad optimistic (i.e. cheap).

[tomandlu]

BTW did anyone see one poster suggesting they check whether there might be some endangered species they can co-opt into the cause... ffs... not even a pretence.

[@contradevian]

Oh, they think about it, but the projections always seem a tad optimistic (i.e. cheap).

No doubt, but likely to have more substance than NIMBY claims. A local NIMBY councillor was trying to convince me the A616 was 'overloaded' near me in order to get a modest housing development between Honley and Brockholes thwarted. As I cycle and walk along it daily, this was unbelievable claim as far as I was concerned.

[dougless]

Thread deleted. Obviously getting a little too heated.