Lib Dem Nimby

[iamnumerate]

http://www.citymetric.com/fabric/we-re-not-building-skyscrapers-stratford-protect-views-richmond-park-2854

A party that wants no controls on immigration is really NIMBY

Quote

You're familiar, I assume, with the acronym NIMBY. Literally "Not in my back yard", it refers to any group of people who don't want things built near them because, well, they prefer fields and trees and chemically contaminated flood plains and so on.

You're probably also used to the fact that, by virtue of being pushy and enthusiastic and well-established in their community, NIMBY pressure groups find it easy to get their voices heard, in a way those who'd benefit from new housing development – younger, poorer, more transient – do not.

ADVERTISING

What you may not have realised, though, is quite how far those back yards can extend, when NIMBYs put their minds to it. Here's a picture of the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, in south west London, with a group campaigning to protect that park's view of St Paul's Cathedral:

A youthful and dynamic group, I'm sure you'll agree.

What they are protecting, exactly, requires some explanation. London contains no fewer than 13 protected views: legal requirements built into the planning system to ensure that certain buildings are visible from certain places. These have a direct knock on effect on what you can build where: you won't get planning permission for anything that blocks the view of the Palace of Westminster from Primrose Hill, for example.

 

The protected views. Image: cmglee/Wikimedia Commons.

One of these protected views is the vista that looks from King Henry VIII's Mound in Richmond Park to St Paul's Cathedral. Basically, Olney and her gang are fighting valiantly to defend that gap in the trees.

It's quite hard to spot what they're looking at, so let's zoom in. I've circled it in red to help you. Here's the view in all its glory.

Thanks, Sarah, what would we do without you.

So, basically, these campaigners all trying to protect a rubbish view of something 10 miles away that you can barely see anyway. That seems silly enough, in a city with this sort of housing crisis, but it’s actually worse than it sounds.

That’s because the protection afforded by the planning system doesn't just stop developers from building something between Richmond and St Paul's: it also stops them from building anything behind it that may make the view less pretty. It’s not enough to be able to see St Paul’s: these nice old people don’t want to take the risk that they can see anything new at the same time.

Where does your back yard end? If you live near Richmond Park, 15 miles away it turns out.

This problem may be silly, but it is not theoretical. From Paul Wellman at  Estates Gazette:

Six high-rise projects in Stratford could be in jeopardy due to a historic viewing corridor from Richmond Park.

Architects Allies and Morrison have confirmed their proposals for 30- and 40-storey towers, as part of the Olympicopolis proposals, are to be redesigned and reduced in height.

This comes soon after conservation charity Friends of Richmond Park called on London mayor Sadiq Khan to halt the construction of the 42-storey Manhattan Loft Gardens, E20.

I'm not going to bore you by quoting figures about the scale of London's housing need for the thousandth time. I'm not going to bang on about the other various ways in which we tie our hands as to what we can build or where.

I'm just going to note, very simply, that even at one of London's largest brownfield sites – an area which the government has spent a fortune on reviving, which has some of the best transport connections in the whole of London – development is being stymied by a bunch of old people 15 miles away who don't want to take the risk they might just about see a skyscraper behind St Paul's when they're out walking the dog.

And the local MP is on their side. We are never going to solve the housing crisis in this country, are we.

 

[disenfranchised]

I'm not sure NIMBY is the right word.

"Massively self entitled ****" would seem to fit better.

[The Young and the Nestless]

To be fair to the property developer... on this occasion they appear to have followed the rules correctly.

From the Guardian:

Quote

A spokeswoman for the Manhattan Loft Corporation told the Guardian the developer went through a transparent and public process to gain planning permission, adding that that maps of the LVMF protected view indicated that the background area to be protected beyond St Paul’s was 3km (1.86 miles) long whereas its tower was 7km (4.35 miles) beyond. 

Reading part 3 of the LVMF it states the: Background Wider Setting Consultation Area (BWSCA) is 3.5km. 
(The new building is much further away than that, so there should be no problem...)
 

 

Edit: perhaps there could be an adaptive camouflage solution/workaround to replace the current sky colour, paid for by Friends of Richmond Park? Something like these displays over the outside of the building:

Edited March 7, 2017 by The Young and the Nestless
Added workaround

[MARTINX9]

The Lib Dems tend to do very well in posh white middle class areas with very low numbers of people of colour.  Richmond park probably has the largest white British population of any seat in London. Tim Farron is always glowing in the praises of mass Immigration - from his 98 per cent white Lake District seat of course!

The Lib Dems are the classic love it but don't want to live it brigade party. Let's have lots of new housing, bring in all the refugees and limited border controls - safe in the knowledge they won't be deposited or built in places like Richmond park or Kendal.

 

 

[SE10]

There's now a petition telling the nimby's to efoff.

Quote

Please ignore the people who are complaining that building skyscrapers in Stratford will ruin their walk in Richmond Park. It won't. It's miles away - 14 literal, actual miles - and they'll still be able to see St Paul's, even if there's some other stuff behind it.

 

[Patient London FTB]

Signed

[Mrs Bear]

34 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

The Lib Dems tend to do very well in posh white middle class areas with very low numbers of people of colour.  Richmond park probably has the largest white British population of any seat in London. Tim Farron is always glowing in the praises of mass Immigration - from his 98 per cent white Lake District seat of course!

The Lib Dems are the classic love it but don't want to live it brigade party. Let's have lots of new housing, bring in all the refugees and limited border controls - safe in the knowledge they won't be deposited or built in places like Richmond park or Kendal.

 

 

This is hardly typical nimby stuff.  

The viewing point in Richmond Park is at least 8 miles from St Paul's, the view of which they want protected.  

i don't know where you got the idea, but I live in the Richmond Park constituency and it's very far from being all white British.  Whenever I get on a local bus (often) at least half the voices I hear are speaking a language other than English.  

My neighbours on one side are naturalised Brits from Iraq, and on the other Chinese - from China, not naturalised. 

Next door but two on one side is an Armenian family originally from Iran and India, and 3 doors away on the other side is another family originally from Iran.  Within the constituency there are also a great many council flats housing people of every colour  and ethnicity under the sun.  

The only all-white-British area I've been to lately was North Devon.  Hardly a non white face to be seen, or a non English speaking voice to be heard.  A completely different world from our neck of the woods. 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Mrs Bear

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, Mrs Bear said:

This is hardly typical nimby stuff.  

The viewing point in Richmond Park is at least 8 miles from St Paul's, the view of which they want protected.  

i don't know where you got the idea, but I live in the Richmond Park constituency and it's very far from being all white British.  Whenever I get on a local bus (often) at least half the voices I hear are speaking a language other than English.  

My neighbours on one side are naturalised Brits from Iraq, and on the other Chinese - from China, not naturalised. 

Next door but two on one side is an Armenian family originally from Iran and India, and 3 doors away on the other side is another family originally from Iran.  Within the constituency there are also a great many council flats housing people of every colour  and ethnicity under the sun.  

The only all-white-British area I've been to lately was North Devon.  Hardly a non white face to be seen, or a non English speaking voice to be heard.  A completely different world from our neck of the woods. 

 

 

True, although there is something evil about wanting large scale immigration but stopping very few houses built for them.

In an ideal world every part of the country would vote at election time for how many houses will be built in their area over the next 5 years and the total is added up by times the average household size and the Government can't let any more immigrants in.  I have no idea how many people we can let in the UK - I could guess how many we can house I live though.

The Lib Dems in Richmond of course could offer up Richmond Park as a place to house thousands of people - that would be very good of them.

[SE10]

1 hour ago, Patient London FTB said:

Signed

Top work. Currently 5x the number of signees compared to when I signed. Nimby fuppers still have a head start though.

[Mrs Bear]

51 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

True, although there is something evil about wanting large scale immigration but stopping very few houses built for them.

In an ideal world every part of the country would vote at election time for how many houses will be built in their area over the next 5 years and the total is added up by times the average household size and the Government can't let any more immigrants in.  I have no idea how many people we can let in the UK - I could guess how many we can house I live though.

The Lib Dems in Richmond of course could offer up Richmond Park as a place to house thousands of people - that would be very good of them.

Er, I don't think so - it's a Royal Park, and a fantastic 2000 acres of green space and nature reserve which is very well used by masses of people in the area.  

If any of  it were built on now - it won't be - it wouldn't be houses for the masses.  It'd be luxury homes at £2m+.  

 

 

 

 

[ASBEAR]

this is incredibly disgusting.

[iamnumerate]

9 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

Er, I don't think so - it's a Royal Park, and a fantastic 2000 acres of green space and nature reserve which is very well used by masses of people in the area.  

If any of  it were built on now - it won't be - it wouldn't be houses for the masses.  It'd be luxury homes at £2m+.  

 

 

 

 

Well I was half joking.  However if - as the Lib Dems believe - we need 300K+ net immigration every year where are they going to live?  What not offer to make Richmond Park masses of council housing etc?  That would be true virtue signalling - offering to make a sacrifice for what they believe in.

[Si1]

12 hours ago, SE10 said:

There's now a petition telling the nimby's to efoff.

 

Signed

[The Knimbies who say No]

Olney seems to have slipped into the Commons mentality with ease.

[The Knimbies who say No]

14 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

This is hardly typical nimby stuff.  

The viewing point in Richmond Park is at least 8 miles from St Paul's, the view of which they want protected.  

i don't know where you got the idea, but I live in the Richmond Park constituency and it's very far from being all white British.  Whenever I get on a local bus (often) at least half the voices I hear are speaking a language other than English.  

My neighbours on one side are naturalised Brits from Iraq, and on the other Chinese - from China, not naturalised. 

Next door but two on one side is an Armenian family originally from Iran and India, and 3 doors away on the other side is another family originally from Iran.  Within the constituency there are also a great many council flats housing people of every colour  and ethnicity under the sun.  

The only all-white-British area I've been to lately was North Devon.  Hardly a non white face to be seen, or a non English speaking voice to be heard.  A completely different world from our neck of the woods. 

 

 

2011 census data.

UK average 87% white (this includes all whites of any nationality)

London average 45% white

Richmond upon Thames 86% white

North Devon 98% white

(for completeness, my own area) Wirral 97% white.

Facts, innit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnic_Groups_-_2011_Census_data

[Darby Ram]

14 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

This is hardly typical nimby stuff.  

The viewing point in Richmond Park is at least 8 miles from St Paul's, the view of which they want protected.  

i don't know where you got the idea, but I live in the Richmond Park constituency and it's very far from being all white British.  Whenever I get on a local bus (often) at least half the voices I hear are speaking a language other than English.  

My neighbours on one side are naturalised Brits from Iraq, and on the other Chinese - from China, not naturalised. 

Next door but two on one side is an Armenian family originally from Iran and India, and 3 doors away on the other side is another family originally from Iran.  Within the constituency there are also a great many council flats housing people of every colour  and ethnicity under the sun.  

The only all-white-British area I've been to lately was North Devon.  Hardly a non white face to be seen, or a non English speaking voice to be heard.  A completely different world from our neck of the woods. 

 

 

Demographically, Richmond is much closer to the rest of the UK, than to the rest of London. Money wise, it's much closer to the richest inner London boroughs than to the rest of the UK. Very white and very rich: don't get your info from bus rides.

 

[Riedquat]

15 hours ago, SE10 said:

There's now a petition telling the nimby's to efoff.

More anti-"nimby" bile, how predictable and depressing, yay, let's continue to make the UK an ever more depressing, busy, ugly place instead, that's a great idea. How I hate people who push that! Along with the people who push anything that increases the need for more vandalism to an already badly damaged country, so wanting more immigration is equally repulsive.

[Maynardgravy]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

More anti-"nimby" bile, how predictable and depressing, yay, let's continue to make the UK an ever more depressing, busy, ugly place instead, that's a great idea. How I hate people who push that! Along with the people who push anything that increases the need for more vandalism to an already badly damaged country, so wanting more immigration is equally repulsive.

It's not really the point though is it. If the LibDem MP was all for limiting immigration then she'd have an argument. But she represents the exact opposite. 'Bring 'em in and cram 'em in. She needs a metaphorical slap. 

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

It's not really the point though is it. If the LibDem MP was all for limiting immigration then she'd have an argument. But she represents the exact opposite. 'Bring 'em in and cram 'em in. She needs a metaphorical slap. 

Strictly speaking she wants "Bring 'em in and cram 'em in somewhere I can't see them" - a really awful view point.  You should only support immigration if you support building that number of homes where you live.

If the Lib Dems suggested where to build the homes we might still be in the EU with cheaper housing or they might have destroyed their support.

Either way they would have had a consistent position and been honourable.

[MrPedantic]

Have they had the second by-election yet?
 

 

[Riedquat]

27 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

It's not really the point though is it. If the LibDem MP was all for limiting immigration then she'd have an argument. But she represents the exact opposite. 'Bring 'em in and cram 'em in. She needs a metaphorical slap. 

I completely agree, which is why I included the bit about anyone wanting more immigration.