• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

Nimbys

Recommended Posts

Why should people be labelled NIMBYS for not wanting their neighbourhood paved over? Never understood this.

It isn't a brownfield site, there are plenty round that area where they could build. It also looks like a floodplain and will have much nature being destroyed.

2017710_14216.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh.

It's not difficult. Look at this quote :-

 "Ensure you come along to save our valley before they destroy the lovely countryside and habitats of Company Fields that could bring some 300 houses and 600 cars, putting more pressure on Oldham Road, schools, doctors and more".

If the developers were forced to build some infrastructure that would benefit the existing residents as well as the new houses, then the game changes and suddenly there will be a lot less local opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Round here the council decide to make it a parcel of land into a gypsy site. The residents protest vociferously. The council agrees to put houses there instead. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief, when they would otherwise have protested the new houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Round here the council decide to make it a parcel of land into a gypsy site. The residents protest vociferously. The council agrees to put houses there instead. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief, when they would otherwise have protested the new houses.

:D Good basic psychology skills on the part of the council!

However it would still be more positive for everyone if developers/the council were forced to offer something people might actually like or want as well, rather than threatening the locals with pikeys.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

Sigh.

It's not difficult. Look at this quote :-

 "Ensure you come along to save our valley before they destroy the lovely countryside and habitats of Company Fields that could bring some 300 houses and 600 cars, putting more pressure on Oldham Road, schools, doctors and more".

If the developers were forced to build some infrastructure that would benefit the existing residents as well as the new houses, then the game changes and suddenly there will be a lot less local opposition.

I always thought this was just a misdirection. The residents don't have many 'valid' arguments at their disposal sadly, so they create strawman ones to try to fend off the council. They know full well the council won't want to spend money on infrastructure, and will likely just bribe the property developers under S106. "We will let you build these homes if you donate £30k to the local primary school to repair the roof as we're too fucking tight". Like many things, it should be a national scandal, but most people are too engorged on a diet of takeaways and crap food to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko2010 said:

I always thought this was just a misdirection. The residents don't have many 'valid' arguments at their disposal sadly, so they create strawman ones to try to fend off the council. They know full well the council won't want to spend money on infrastructure, and will likely just bribe the property developers under S106. "We will let you build these homes if you donate £30k to the local primary school to repair the roof as we're too fucking tight". Like many things, it should be a national scandal, but most people are too engorged on a diet of takeaways and crap food to think.

You may well be right regarding the misdirection in cases like this in the UK - things are so shit that both sides just engage in false arguments.

This kind of thing has to be enshrined in law like in CH to work, so the council can't actually build the houses without the accompanying infrastructure. Some housing developments are actually wanted by locals as a consequence, you would never see that otherwise. An enlightened council could try this approach voluntarily to see if it helped at least. So they can start off with a proposed pikey camp, and move slowly under pressure to houses and a new medical centre or swimming pool....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

Sigh.

It's not difficult. Look at this quote :-

 "Ensure you come along to save our valley before they destroy the lovely countryside and habitats of Company Fields that could bring some 300 houses and 600 cars, putting more pressure on Oldham Road, schools, doctors and more".

If the developers were forced to build some infrastructure that would benefit the existing residents as well as the new houses, then the game changes and suddenly there will be a lot less local opposition.

The same nimbys will bleat on about how we need growth and jobs next,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

Why should people be labelled NIMBYS for not wanting their neighbourhood paved over? Never understood this.

 


Cllr: Councillor Adrian Alexander, who represents Saddleworth West & Lees, said of the proposals: "We need new houses but not at the expense of residents who have been there for years."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swissy_fit said:

Sigh.

It's not difficult. Look at this quote :-

 "Ensure you come along to save our valley before they destroy the lovely countryside and habitats of Company Fields that could bring some 300 houses and 600 cars, putting more pressure on Oldham Road, schools, doctors and more".

If the developers were forced to build some infrastructure that would benefit the existing residents as well as the new houses, then the game changes and suddenly there will be a lot less local opposition.

This.

The same is happening around me. I've no problem with the houses being built at all but these new people are going to be proper fucked if they want a doctors appointment within a month or to put their kids in school.

It's fucking mental and it's going to bite us in the arse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spunko2010 said:

I always thought this was just a misdirection. The residents don't have many 'valid' arguments at their disposal sadly, so they create strawman ones to try to fend off the council. They know full well the council won't want to spend money on infrastructure, and will likely just bribe the property developers under S106. "We will let you build these homes if you donate £30k to the local primary school to repair the roof as we're too fucking tight". Like many things, it should be a national scandal, but most people are too engorged on a diet of takeaways and crap food to think.

I'm seeing a number of developments in my area, where the developer wants to either dramatically reduce their S106 payments for infrastructure, or to expunge them completely, as apparently the development would no longer be viable - and in the certain cases, they have been successful.  It also seems as if the local council also is pushing greenfield development over brownfield..  

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Green Devil said:

The one thing in find irritating about nimbys is that most of them are pro unlimited immigration.

Yet they don't want housing in their back yard. Go figure!

That winds me right up. 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and I've no problem with people disagreeing with mine, but people who can't be arsed to present a consistent joined up world view need to just shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me down as a NIMBY!

I have a house in a small village on the outskirts of Darlington. The village is around 90 houses, and I bought it for its rural location and access to the countryside. There are currently two planning applications for the village, one for 33 houses and one for 14 houses, expanding the footprint of the village by over 50%. There is also a proposed development of 1,500 houses to the north of the village. If these three planning applications are approved the village will be swallowed up into the Darlington conurbation. The historical and unique qualities of the village will be lost., along with the rural aspect I originally bought the house for. Aside from this, available local services are non-existent, current residents with school aged children have to bus their kids across town as there are no local school places. A dentist appointment means a two month wait, a doctors appointment is almost impossible, quicker to go the the walk in center.  The developments are not sustainable and not needed as there is no housing shortage up here. I cant see why the desire for constant growth is a good thing.  The council only sees the council tax revenue, and completely disregards the needs and desires of the existing council tax payers. This, along with the greed and opportunistic nature of developers, is changing the fabric of the country.

Life is more than cheap housing.

Edited by Fossildog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SpectrumFX said:

That winds me right up. 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and I've no problem with people disagreeing with mine, but people who can't be arsed to present a consistent joined up world view need to just shut the fuck up.

That's most people afaict.  Starts with government who fail to join the dots and then the meedja and populace lap it up unthinkingly to the regurgitate it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sgt Hartman said:

This.

The same is happening around me. I've no problem with the houses being built at all but these new people are going to be proper fucked if they want a doctors appointment within a month or to put their kids in school.

It's fucking mental and it's going to bite us in the arse.

 

But this doesn't just happen when they build on greenspace, it happens whereever they build new houses.
No one throws up a new GP surgery or a primary school, when they add 500 houses.

These people already live somewhere else - so there is a dilution somewhere else maybe... which is then filled by other people moving into theirs who weren't here previously (At some point in the chain which may go several stages) 


In Norfolk: There are 1,431 unfilled year seven spots across the county - making up almost 15pc of the 9,672 available across its 54 high schools.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/revealed-which-norfolk-secondary-schools-have-the-most-and-least-unfilled-places-1-4959499


And what happens when free schools are undersubscribed? The govt wants money back:
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/empty-free-schools-owe-government-11m/
Which will be why the one near me is closing.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

But this doesn't just happen when they build on greenspace, it happens whereever they build new houses.
No one throws up a new GP surgery or a primary school, when they add 500 houses.

These people already live somewhere else - so there is a dilution somewhere else maybe... which is then filled by other people moving into theirs who weren't here previously (At some point in the chain which may go several stages) 


In Norfolk: There are 1,431 unfilled year seven spots across the county - making up almost 15pc of the 9,672 available across its 54 high schools.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/revealed-which-norfolk-secondary-schools-have-the-most-and-least-unfilled-places-1-4959499


And what happens when free schools are undersubscribed? The govt wants money back:
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/empty-free-schools-owe-government-11m/
Which will be why the one near me is closing.


 

Exactly! And it's so obvious that they should. The UK has been adding millions of people without adding any infrastructure for decades now, and surprise surprise, the quality of life for everyone has plummeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fossildog said:

Put me down as a NIMBY!

I have a house in a small village on the outskirts of Darlington. The village is around 90 houses, and I bought it for its rural location and access to the countryside. There are currently two planning applications for the village, one for 33 houses and one for 14 houses, expanding the footprint of the village by over 50%. There is also a proposed development of 1,500 houses to the north of the village. If these three planning applications are approved the village will be swallowed up into the Darlington conurbation. The historical and unique qualities of the village will be lost., along with the rural aspect I originally bought the house for. Aside from this, available local services are non-existent, current residents with school aged children have to bus their kids across town as there are no local school places. A dentist appointment means a two month wait, a doctors appointment is almost impossible, quicker to go the the walk in center.  The developments are not sustainable and not needed as there is no housing shortage up here. I cant see why the desire for constant growth is a good thing.  The council only sees the council tax revenue, and completely disregards the needs and desires of the existing council tax payers. This, along with the greed and opportunistic nature of developers, is changing the fabric of the country.

Life is more than cheap housing.

Serious question - if the plans were changed to include a number of amenities that you would like to have (what these are varies from one person to another so haven't suggested anything specific - in CH it can be anything from a school to a large wildlife sanctuary) within walking distance of the house, would this change your attitude at all? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swissy_fit said:

Serious question - if the plans were changed to include a number of amenities that you would like to have (what these are varies from one person to another so haven't suggested anything specific - in CH it can be anything from a school to a large wildlife sanctuary) within walking distance of the house, would this change your attitude at all? 

 

I don't believe I would look at the plans more favorably, purely because I chose the location of the house based on its rural aspect. Whilst I accepted when I bought it that I would need to travel some miles for local amenities, these are working over capacity at the moment and any new housing will only exacerbate the problem. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fossildog said:

 

I don't believe I would look at the plans more favorably, purely because I chose the location of the house based on its rural aspect. Whilst I accepted when I bought it that I would need to travel some miles for local amenities, these are working over capacity at the moment and any new housing will only exacerbate the problem. 

 

 

The scale of the expansion round here is crazy. Middleton St. George is now a small town in its own right. West Park likewise. The thing is, despite ostensibly being "Darlington" I don't think the residents of either of these places look in that direction; they're commuter outposts for Teesside and Durham respectively. And the residents of both will be white flighters from the South East, pushing up the cost of everything for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, eight said:

The scale of the expansion round here is crazy. Middleton St. George is now a small town in its own right. West Park likewise. The thing is, despite ostensibly being "Darlington" I don't think the residents of either of these places look in that direction; they're commuter outposts for Teesside and Durham respectively. And the residents of both will be white flighters from the South East, pushing up the cost of everything for everybody.

It is crazy, driven mostly by greed by both the council and developers. There is a proposal for 1,520 new houses in the West End, Coniscliffe Park, which will stretch all the way from Coniscliffe Road to Staindrop Road (marked in red on the map). If approved it will dwarf West Park. This is in addition to the approval that will continue to expand MSG and probably lead to the closure of the airport. 

5649671.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=respo

What galls me the most is that we have to pay council tax with threat of jail for non payment, yet this money is then used to pay the salaries of planning officers who do not have, I believe, the best interests of the town at heart. If the rate of expansion continues that I will need to look to the villages between Merrybent and Barnard Castle for the semi-rural life I want.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fossildog said:

 

5649671.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=respo

 

To quote Madonna "This used to be my playground". I'm from Branksome originally.

I watched a David Icke (no, really)  video on UN Agenda 21, he was on about Singapore style allowed development in conurbations, along motorways and railway lines, and the gradual abandonment of the countryside, with such as wolves and bears reintroduced, and reforestation. It was 95% crackpot, but the other 5% sure did ring true.

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.