New development at the end of an unadopted road

[skwdenyer]

hunton69 said:

untakenname said:

If the residents started parking on the road both sides then wide vehicles likely wouldn't be able able to go down it (not sure if this would cause issues with rubbish collection).

Depending on how long the residents have had their gardens extended wouldn't the 8 year rule come in?

Are you talking about adverse possession I thought that’s 10 years.
I know of two properties that receive letters every 7 years to cover that as they approached the council a couple of others are not so clear as they didn’t

If uncertain about the road issue, I'd start with Number 27. Never registered at the Land Registry. So what do their deeds say? Assuming they still exist, and assuming they're "friendlies" then their deeds (assuming they still have them) could be very useful in figuring out precisely what the rights and responsibilities are around that private road.

There's a lot of scope here, but you / someone has to be organised and motivated to dig until the full picture is clear.

[hunton69]

Collectingbrass said:

Yes, it will be, with remote CCTV back to control rooms as well probably, this is something the industry is well used too. And the objectors would need to be prepared to keep the protest up 24 / 7 too with ultimately the risk of arrest and a criminal record. Of course it may be that the developer is not such a household name and less worried about either their brand or who they associate with. Either way there'll only be one winner and it wont be the protestors...

They’re not protestors they won’t block the road.
It might be impossible to get a lorry through.
No idea how they can get arrested.

[gt_12345]

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

[SpeckledJim]

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

[JackJarvis]

Did the OP really suggest he's concerned about affordable housing occupants having to walk to the shops?

Come on, just admit you're absolutely fuming at the prospect of poor people living next to you.

This is textbook NIMBY behaviour.

[355spider]

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

To be fair though, there are certain cases where you can understand, the photos above for instance doesn’t appear to be very appropriate for access, and there’s a proposal near me, in a hot spot for flooding, yet they want to dig up a green field and plonk 100+ houses…

[gt_12345]

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

[vonhosen]

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

Depends on their outlook I suppose. Potentially they might make a lot of new friends.

Of course the real question is that is there a wider benefit than that (the OP) from any proposed development?

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 28th March 16:52

[Dingu]

Alltrack said:

Fozziebear said:

stavers said:

Dingu said:

No wonder there is a lack of housing with such NIMBYs

More than enough houses. We don't need to build any more apart from the fact that it makes people lots of money so the developers give the back handers to the right people and it all carries on.

The biggest problem is that houses are seen as investments rather than places to live and people are prepared to pay stupid money for them based on that reason.

Coventry is currently having about 2500 houses built one green belt on the way out to Birmingham yet a newspaper report said that nearly 3000 houses are sat empty in Coventry. So why does it need another 2500 houses destroying conuntryside?

it does depend on what area these empty houses are in, I'd edge my bets they are in shoddy condition and in less than pleasant zones. its the same in most big city zones, I grew up in dagenham, id certainly not want to bring a family up in that area now, but the leafy green area outside I would.

It's this - the empty houses in Coventry are almost all in grim areas where no one if they had a choice would want to live.

It’s ok, Stavers is going to move his family there to help out.

[hunton69]

SpeckledJim said:

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

Difficult that one mine was the first house built in 1926 the private road wasn’t built and the owner of my house owned the land down to the main road and therefore no one could complain.
When he sold the land the houses on my side (opposite the private road) had to be built to a certain minimum £600 per house with brick how times have changed

I don’t have a problem with development I have a problem with over development within a small space.
My house sits in 4 acres I do hope you support my future development

Edited by hunton69 on Tuesday 28th March 16:50

[SpeckledJim]

355spider said:

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

To be fair though, there are certain cases where you can understand, the photos above for instance doesn’t appear to be very appropriate for access, and there’s a proposal near me, in a hot spot for flooding, yet they want to dig up a green field and plonk 100+ houses…

If someone wants to live on a flood plain that's their look-out. We don't have enough houses. Some will be built in places we'd rather they weren't. Your house and my house were both built in places that someone would rather they weren't. Thankfully those people were ignored, as I like my house and I imagine you like yours.

Life for my nimbys and your nimbys somehow carried on in the presence of the infernal new houses. This was 100 years ago in the case of my house, but I imagine they're still out there, cross, somewhere. Bless them.

[hunton69]

gt_12345 said:

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

Your question was to difficult

[SpeckledJim]

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

Who gives a fk about the OP? He's already got a house. It's going to make bugger-all difference to him and it's really not any of his business.

The new houses will make life a damn sight better for the people who'll get to live in them. They're also the people who'll pay for them.

Overall utility goes up. And if nimbys get a bit cross then hey-ho. If they weren't cross about this they'd be cross about something else.

If you want final say on what gets built in a field, buy the field.

[355spider]

SpeckledJim said:

355spider said:

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

To be fair though, there are certain cases where you can understand, the photos above for instance doesn’t appear to be very appropriate for access, and there’s a proposal near me, in a hot spot for flooding, yet they want to dig up a green field and plonk 100+ houses…

If someone wants to live on a flood plain that's their look-out. We don't have enough houses. Some will be built in places we'd rather they weren't. Your house and my house were both built in places that someone would rather they weren't. Thankfully those people were ignored, as I like my house and I imagine you like yours.

Life for my nimbys and your nimbys somehow carried on in the presence of the infernal new houses. This was 100 years ago in the case of my house, but I imagine they're still out there, cross, somewhere. Bless them.

I wasn’t referring to the new purchasers, as you say that’s their issue, I was alluding to the existing properties, the problem can only be made worse by losing the drainage of that field and replacing it with an estate.

[SpeckledJim]

hunton69 said:

gt_12345 said:

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

Your question was to difficult

Quoted for posterity. See if you can work out why?

[gt_12345]

vonhosen said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

Depends on their outlook I suppose. Potentially they might make a lot of new friends.

These houses are only being built because the country has been attacked with migration the last 25 years.

Migration has been allowed because both New Labour and Tories were/are funded/ran by the same people- business owners who want lower wages and landlords who want more demand for property.

More congestion, more stress, more crime, more demand for public services...... none of which will be experienced by those responsible for the house building, living in their very affluent areas. And these people use public services (education and healthcare) less, so that affects them less too.

It's not being a "nimby" to oppose all this, it's common fking sense (unless you wish the entire country resembles London?).

[wisbech]

gt_12345 said:

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

Better. It replacing a scuzzy chicken farm

[SpeckledJim]

355spider said:

SpeckledJim said:

355spider said:

SpeckledJim said:

gt_12345 said:

SpeckledJim said:

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

Nimby?

What sort of person wants 30-50 houses suddenly being built next to them?

Let me rephrase the question: do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen their quality of life?

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

To be fair though, there are certain cases where you can understand, the photos above for instance doesn’t appear to be very appropriate for access, and there’s a proposal near me, in a hot spot for flooding, yet they want to dig up a green field and plonk 100+ houses…

If someone wants to live on a flood plain that's their look-out. We don't have enough houses. Some will be built in places we'd rather they weren't. Your house and my house were both built in places that someone would rather they weren't. Thankfully those people were ignored, as I like my house and I imagine you like yours.

Life for my nimbys and your nimbys somehow carried on in the presence of the infernal new houses. This was 100 years ago in the case of my house, but I imagine they're still out there, cross, somewhere. Bless them.

I wasn’t referring to the new purchasers, as you say that’s their issue, I was alluding to the existing properties, the problem can only be made worse by losing the drainage of that field and replacing it with an estate.

If it's a crappy proposal then the system should see it thrown out, or adapted until it's not crappy any more.

What we absolutely cannot do is hand influence on the decision to local people. Because, well, this thread.

[hunton69]

JackJarvis said:

Did the OP really suggest he's concerned about affordable housing occupants having to walk to the shops?

Come on, just admit you're absolutely fuming at the prospect of poor people living next to you.

This is textbook NIMBY behaviour.

The developers planning statement admits the amenities are three times further away than the guidelines say they should.
I had no idea what the guidelines were until I read that.
Why have guidelines.

I live 250 meters away up the lane other than walking a dog there is no reason to go that way so to answer you I’m not fuming.

My business relies on people without cars

[Grumps.]

hunton69 said:

SpeckledJim said:

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

Difficult that one mine was the first house built in 1926 the private road wasn’t built and the owner of my house owned the land down to the main road and therefore no one could complain.
When he sold the land the houses on my side (opposite the private road) had to be built to a certain minimum £600 per house with brick how times have changed

I don’t have a problem with development I have a problem with over development within a small space.
My house sits in 4 acres I do hope you support my future development

Edited by hunton69 on Tuesday 28th March 16:50

So which is it?

Not the correct houses or too many of them?