The controversial issue of new houses.....

[Alison]

As for land being 'contaminated', well I believe it can be cleaned up.

It can be but it is usually very expensive, as somebody who has been involved in cleaning up brown field sites and it's amazing what hidden contaminants and bad practices have built up over the years, historically with very bad records too. Obviously this isn't always the case but it does need considering. Also, even without the cost, I don't see why potentially vulnerable people (no offence meant but there are many vulnerable people in low income situations) should have to put up with second (or third) class locations. Everybody's house was built at some point and it is possible that even if that were many years ago it could still have spoiled somebody's view etc. Suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's not an easy thing and each situation needs considering rationally not with knee jerk panic reactions. Always difficult to comment on individual cases when we don't know many of the facts

[smallblueplanet]

... Always difficult to comment on individual cases when we don't know many of the facts

That was my point exactly. Of course that is also why we having Planning Regs to try and balance peoples needs.

[reetnproper]

Obviously, from the point of view of people waiting for housing, this decision probably seems very unfair and selfish but I don't believe it's a purely NIMBY mentality. I think you'll find that there are several, legitimate, reasons for the veto.

We live in what was a beautiful, peaceful village when we moved in, with glorious views of the ridge, a field in front and an open paddock behind us.

Since then 3 'luxury' homes have been sqeezed onto the paddock and 21 houses (mostly luxury/executive homes but with 7 so-called low cost homes) have been built in the field across from us.

Gone is the view and our once peaceful village, is now over-run with teenagers and children who have been allowed to run, unchecked by their parents, who, for the most part, are happily out at work, oblivious to and/or unconcerned with what their children are doing in their absence. A case in point is one family in the new house opposite whose son has caused us so much stress that the police have actually issued us with a CCTV camera.

And this wasn't a social housing build either but it is a sign of the times and shows why the exisitng community may have vetoed the new build. Residents may well feel that the introduction of so many new families/homes into the community may well cause probelms and ruin the quality of life for those who already live their. Things are NEVER black and white.

In addition, it could be that the number of homes planned may well have overburdoned facilities such as sewers, water, gas and electric not to mention the increase in traffic and the issue of access. The original plans for the development in our village, was rejected, by our parish council, due to the number of properties proposed and the concerns of the local facilities (i.e. victorian sewers etc), access etc. It was resubmitted with fewer homes and passed. You may find that this will be the case where you are.

Although I appreciate that from your point of view it appears to be a selfish act, I think you have to put yourself into the shoes of some of those that vetoed these plans and try and understand their point of view. The need for more housing can not be solved by just building/squeezing large numbers into any old place. That's not fair on the residents (social OR private) who are already there and, frankly, I think if you were in the situation these residents found themselves in, you'd be just as cautious as they have been.

Reet
x

[lizzylemon]

......We live in what was a beautiful, peaceful village when we moved in, with glorious views of the ridge, a field in front and an open paddock behind us.

Since then 3 'luxury' homes have been sqeezed onto the paddock and 21 houses (mostly luxury/executive homes but with 7 so-called low cost homes) have been built in the field across from us.

Gone is the view and our once peaceful village, is now over-run with teenagers and children who have been allowed to run, unchecked by their parents, who, for the most part, are happily out at work, oblivious to and/or unconcerned with what their children are doing in their absence. A case in point is one family in the new house opposite whose son has caused us so much stress that the police have actually issued us with a CCTV camera.

And this wasn't a social housing build either but it is a sign of the times and shows why the exisitng community may have vetoed the new build. Residents may well feel that the introduction of so many new families/homes into the community may well cause probelms and ruin the quality of life for those who already live their. Things are NEVER black and white

I'm sorry that you're experiencing bad neighbours, it's a really awful situation to be in and I understand it must be very frustrating and saddening to see a lovely village changed beyond it's former life - sad times in deed.

I am very sympathetic to both sides of the arguement and actually helped to set up a successful charity about 8 years now that addresses all of these issues and more about the built environment because it is now beyond urgent.

For instance: if no else joins the housing list for Cambridge City (I don't live there btw) as of today, at the current rate of building social housing (not private or 'affordable' private houses) it will take 44 years for each name on the list to have a house.

As I said to SBP, these people who vetoed the plans are people who actually live in houses built by the same association who want to build the new houses and these people always knew the land behind them on the outskirts of the village was earmarked for more houses at some point.

There are some infrastructure issues, the sewer being one but as this is already scheduled to be updated in 2016 when the association wants to start the actual building process, it's not a real concern. And as I said before, the housing association have a budget for helping the health centre expand to cope with the additional people.

Where I live is actually as far from a quaint rural village as you can get - it's held the dubious title of 'Countries Largest Village' on and off for many years so 47 houses on boundary land already earmarked for that exact purpose is not going to change the look of the village at all.

47 houses will dramatically and positively change the lives of at least 47, (more closer to 140ish) people. They will be young, old, families, single people, people starting out, people retiring, every single one who at the moment face a the bleak exsistence of sub-standard housing or even worse, B&B rooms or shelters.

The Parish Council are quoted as saying:

"We are interested in the idea of more social housing but it's not the right time"

So yes I agree whole heartedly, things are never black and white. Do I agree with NIMBY? Sorry no, not after that statement.

But rather than continue a debate with you guys over it, as interesting, informative and balanced as it is, I've decided to become actively involved again because I am so passionate about it.

I won't benefit directly from these new houses, it's too far down the road, but if it means there are homes for people in the future, like you and me, when we most need security in our lives, then it will be worth it.

[Alison]

But rather than continue a debate with you guys over it, as interesting, informative and balanced as it is, I've decided to become actively involved again because I am so passionate about it.

I won't benefit directly from these new houses, it's too far down the road, but if it means there are homes for people in the future, like you and me, when we most need security in our lives, then it will be worth it.

Good on you, far too many people just sit and moan about things which they claim to be passionate about but don't acutally DO anything. Regardless of the eventual outcome you will know that you did what was right for you Apathetic moaners are my pet hate but not sure what I can do to turn that into a positive

[zazen999]

Obviously, from the point of view of people waiting for housing, this decision probably seems very unfair and selfish but I don't believe it's a purely NIMBY mentality. I think you'll find that there are several, legitimate, reasons for the veto.

I think Lizzy's point is, that the very people vetoing this decision would be the ones desperate for housing had the LAST decision been veto-ed when THEY were looking for somewhere to live. Not fair, not at all...

Many many villages lose their younger residents as older people buy up houses as BTL or Second Houses...which leaves the youngsters where exactly?

So then the younger ones move out, taking with them the increased incomes as THEY move further up the ladder; whilst half the housing is rented out or empty. That's when you get problems.....

[smallblueplanet]

...as older people buy up houses as BTL or Second Houses...which leaves the youngsters where exactly? ...

Or maybe the houses have been sold under 'Right to Buy'? Can tenants still buy their housing association property? What point in building social housing and then selling it?

[zazen999]

Or maybe the houses have been sold under 'Right to Buy'? Can tenants still buy their housing association property? What point in building social housing and then selling it?

I'm talking non-social housing that is sold for BTL or as a second home; that means social housing needs to be built in the first place; as it drives the prices up and freezes the locals out.

[smallblueplanet]

I'm talking non-social housing that is sold for BTL or as a second home; that means social housing needs to be built in the first place; as it drives the prices up and freezes the locals out.

You can't seperate the housing market like that - lots of small villages had 'social housing' (or council houses as used to be!) built for the rural poor, if you like, but where is it now? Mostly been sold off. Has any of the social housing that lizzylemon is talking about, the already built ones...has any of that been sold off?

[Glutton4...]

...Many many villages lose their younger residents as older people buy up houses as BTL or Second Houses...which leaves the youngsters where exactly?

So then the younger ones move out, taking with them the increased incomes as THEY move further up the ladder; whilst half the housing is rented out or empty. That's when you get problems.....

Our village is mainly populated by 'outsiders,' people who commute miles and hours every week for work, so they can live in a lovely area. Which is great for them.

I was brought up here, but can't afford to buy or rent, locally, at the moment, as property prices here are extortionate, and, strangely, I want to stay in the area - it is my home.

We could move to say, the Fens, cheaper parts of Wales, or other areas, but then we would be viewed by our new neighbours in the same way as I view MY new neighbours; 'outsiders' - and I don't want that.

[miffy]

I live in a rapidly growing town in Warwickshire, over the last two years developers have been buying up large period properties on our road and demolishing them and building 'executive' homes, five to a plot on the site of what were beautiful villas and lovely gardens.
None of these houses are for people on income support or families who need a bump onto the property ladder.
They have now given the go ahead to build on a so called 'brown filed site' a massive 6,500 houses. The site in question is the old mast site just off the a5 and M1 in Rugby.
This is far from a brown field site as cattle and sheep graze there, it is a flood plain for the avon and has rare plants on the site, but because of one telecom building and the masts they have been allowed to build all these new homes on it.
I don't know as of yet how many of these will be affordable homes but they have not given any thought to the infrastructure needed to support 6,500 families, where will they go to school? With wards closing on our lovely St Cross Hospital by the month, no peadeatric support or emergency department in the town anymore, this has been moved 16 miles away to Coventry how will we help them if they are ill. I know people need homes but feel little or no thought goes into the planning process.
Planners need to really start to think about what people need not fulfilling criteria.
People need well designed, energy efficient housing with minimum running costs, they need to think about where best to build this, is this by the a5 and m1? think of the noise and air pollution! For communities to be kept alive I think that new people need to come into the areas and also for the grown up children of families to be able to buy homes where they grew up and have their extended families is so important for people in rural communities.
I do hope that your meeting with the planners etc goes well and I keep my fingers crossed for you.
Beggers belief.

[Hilary B]

How much of the problem is not enough homes, and how much is too much demand? There is a much higher number these days of one-person households, which means more demand.
As for the 'view v housing' argument, often the 'view' is also food-production-space, and if we concrete over the whole country, there won't be anywhere left to grow anything.
Many planning applications these days that get turned down, it is for being too low density, ie having gardens big enough to know they exist! The planners want rabbit-hutches with gardens about big enough to park a car in the front and about as much space behind.
How many new homes are built on what used to be allotment land? Quite a lot in some places.

[Brengirl]

Exactly Hilary. We are supposed to be an affluent society and by that I mean 'all mod cons' are basic to everyones needs. BUT, there are traps that lure the prospecive young house owners from which they cannot escape. Several of my grandchildren have been lured into 'part equity arrangements'. I describe this as 'fools gold'. They are now trapped into living arrangements that no longer meet there needs but there is no way out.

[Glutton4...]

One of my complaints regarding the new housing that does go up is parking spaces! Many couples have a car each. Many couples have grown-up offspring at home (because they can't afford a place of their own) who have cars. Some households have four cars. Where the chuff are they supposed to park, when each property doesn't have enough exterior room to swing the proverbial cat?

Yes, they park in the road. Or block their neighbours' properties. Or park illegally.

Drives me potty (should've put this on the 'rant' thread!).

[lizzylemon]

This is the sort of thing I think the built environment trade should be looking towards as normal everyday example of what it should be striving for.

This place was one of the first to be built on such a 'grand scale' and the lead Architect gave a brilliant, sensible but inspiring talk for our charity a few years back. There's loads of fantastic sustainable communities popping up these days who probaby leave this one behind a little but I still love it.

BedZED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BedZED - Our projects - What We Do | BioRegional: solutions for sustainability