New development at the end of an unadopted road
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
Who gives a f
k about the OP?
And the millions of other people similarly affected?k about the OP? SpeckledJim said:
It's going to make bugger-all difference to him and it's really not any of his business.
60 to 100 more cars on the road won't affect anything? 30 more kids for the local primary school? I could go on..... SpeckledJim said:
The new houses will make life a damn sight better for the people who'll get to live in them.
Who gives a fk about them?SpeckledJim said:
Overall utility goes up.
Please explain?hunton69 said:
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.Come on, just admit you're absolutely fuming at the prospect of poor people living next to you.
This is textbook NIMBY behaviour.
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
gt_12345 said:
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?
king-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.
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.
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 f
king sense (unless you wish the entire country resembles London?).
Can you define what a nimby is, if not this? You're even whining about foreigners! West Ham fan? Central casting or what!?
Someone, out there, who is like you, but who is not you, would very much prefer that your house did not exist. They have really strong opinions about it.
Be honest now - how much influence over the existence of your house would you like to give them?
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?
king-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.
(was) Nimby.
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Who gives a fk about the OP?
And the millions of other people similarly affected?k about the OP? SpeckledJim said:
It's going to make bugger-all difference to him and it's really not any of his business.
60 to 100 more cars on the road won't affect anything? 30 more kids for the local primary school? I could go on..... SpeckledJim said:
The new houses will make life a damn sight better for the people who'll get to live in them.
Who gives a fk about them?SpeckledJim said:
Overall utility goes up.
Please explain?Google utility, and then come back and try to rationalise why it's not important.
WrekinCrew said:
No comment on any of this, but I've finally decided to change my PH username.
(was) Nimby.
(was) Nimby.
Once a nimby, always a nimby.
ETA OP's new neighbours will be going round the wrekin to get their
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 28th March 17:12
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
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?
king-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.
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.
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 f
king sense (unless you wish the entire country resembles London?).Can you define what a nimby is, if not this? You're even whining about foreigners! West Ham fan? Central casting or what!?
Someone, out there, who is like you, but who is not you, would very much prefer that your house did not exist. They have really strong opinions about it.
Be honest now - how much influence over the existence of your house would you like to give them?
I'm against 95% of the population having their quality of life ruined so the remaining 5% can increase their bank balance, without feeling the effects of their actions.
Which of the above is unreasonable and why?
wisbech said:
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
The new houses will make life a damn sight better for the people who'll get to live in them.
Who gives a fk about them?k about people they know.SpeckledJim said:
Who gives a fk about the OP?
I was replying to Jim using his own phrase ^k about the OP?gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
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?
king-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.
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.
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 f
king sense (unless you wish the entire country resembles London?).Can you define what a nimby is, if not this? You're even whining about foreigners! West Ham fan? Central casting or what!?
Someone, out there, who is like you, but who is not you, would very much prefer that your house did not exist. They have really strong opinions about it.
Be honest now - how much influence over the existence of your house would you like to give them?
I'm against 95% of the population having their quality of life ruined so the remaining 5% can increase their bank balance, without feeling the effects of their actions.
Which of the above is unreasonable and why?
"Any comments from the floor?"
"Err, Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to say that having 30 new houses at the end of the road is going to ruin my quality of life. And everyone else's. And, err, there are too many immigrants."
"Right, well, umm, thank you for feeling you could speak so freely. [embarrassed pause] Shall we move to a vote?"
SpeckledJim said:
The new houses will make life a damn sight better for the people who'll get to live in them.
How do you know? And, in this particular case, when they find the access road is falling apart in a few years' time, dragging down property values and puncturing their tyres, what then?Utility is a poor substitute for getting stuff done right.
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
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?
king-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.
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.
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 f
king sense (unless you wish the entire country resembles London?).Can you define what a nimby is, if not this? You're even whining about foreigners! West Ham fan? Central casting or what!?
Someone, out there, who is like you, but who is not you, would very much prefer that your house did not exist. They have really strong opinions about it.
Be honest now - how much influence over the existence of your house would you like to give them?
I'm against 95% of the population having their quality of life ruined so the remaining 5% can increase their bank balance, without feeling the effects of their actions.
Which of the above is unreasonable and why?
"Any comments from the floor?"
"Err, Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to say that having 30 new houses at the end of the road is going to ruin my quality of life. And everyone else's. And, err, there are too many immigrants."
"Right, well, umm, thank you for feeling you could speak so freely. [embarrassed pause] Shall we move to a vote?"
Does more people increase the demand for housing/rent? Yes
Does an increase in the demand for housing/rent increase prices? Yes
Does more people increase the supply of Labour? Yes
Does an increase in the supply of Labour suppress wages? Yes
Do the CBI pressure the Government to increase immigration? Yes
Do the CBI represent business owners? Yes
Does more people increase the traffic on roads? Yes
Does more people increase the demand for public services? Yes
Which part is made up?
skwdenyer said:
SpeckledJim said:
The new houses will make life a damn sight better for the people who'll get to live in them.
How do you know? And, in this particular case, when they find the access road is falling apart in a few years' time, dragging down property values and puncturing their tyres, what then?Utility is a poor substitute for getting stuff done right.
Nobody is arguing that the road should be destroyed. If the road needs improving, then it should be improved. I'm arguing that if you give the locals any real say in whether stuff gets built, then nothing will get built. Listen to Alf Garnett above. Would you hand him ANY influence over the lovely house you live in???
And so he gets his way and nothing is built and utility is not increased. Which is a bad thing. The presence of new houses down the road generally has a negligible impact on anyone who doesn't live in them, and a greatly positive impact on the people who get to live in them.
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
SpeckledJim said:
gt_12345 said:
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?
king-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.
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.
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 f
king sense (unless you wish the entire country resembles London?).Can you define what a nimby is, if not this? You're even whining about foreigners! West Ham fan? Central casting or what!?
Someone, out there, who is like you, but who is not you, would very much prefer that your house did not exist. They have really strong opinions about it.
Be honest now - how much influence over the existence of your house would you like to give them?
I'm against 95% of the population having their quality of life ruined so the remaining 5% can increase their bank balance, without feeling the effects of their actions.
Which of the above is unreasonable and why?
"Any comments from the floor?"
"Err, Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to say that having 30 new houses at the end of the road is going to ruin my quality of life. And everyone else's. And, err, there are too many immigrants."
"Right, well, umm, thank you for feeling you could speak so freely. [embarrassed pause] Shall we move to a vote?"
Does more people increase the demand for housing/rent? Yes
Does an increase in the demand for housing/rent increase prices? Yes
Does more people increase the supply of Labour? Yes
Does an increase in the supply of Labour suppress wages? Yes
Do the CBI pressure the Government to increase immigration? Yes
Do the CBI represent business owners? Yes
Does more people increase the traffic on roads? Yes
Does more people increase the demand for public services? Yes
Which part is made up?
gt_12345 said:
It's all made-up?
Does more people increase the demand for housing/rent? Yes
Building more houses helps alleviate any shortfall.Does more people increase the demand for housing/rent? Yes
People are crying out for quality affordable housing.
gt_12345 said:
Does an increase in the demand for housing/rent increase prices? Yes
More housing stock reduces that.SpeckledJim said:
Nobody is arguing that the road should be destroyed. If the road needs improving, then it should be improved. I'm arguing that if you give the locals any real say in whether stuff gets built, then nothing will get built. Listen to Alf Garnett above. Would you hand him ANY influence over the lovely house you live in???
And so he gets his way and nothing is built
So what is the point asking for neighbours comments they all get ignored until they find one in favour.And so he gets his way and nothing is built
Pointless
hunton69 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Nobody is arguing that the road should be destroyed. If the road needs improving, then it should be improved. I'm arguing that if you give the locals any real say in whether stuff gets built, then nothing will get built. Listen to Alf Garnett above. Would you hand him ANY influence over the lovely house you live in???
And so he gets his way and nothing is built
So what is the point asking for neighbours comments they all get ignored until they find one in favour.And so he gets his way and nothing is built
Pointless
Variations on 'I don't like it', 'town is too big already', 'its 1300m to milk' and 'some of them don't speak English' should all be completely ignored.
Trumped absolutely by the simple truth that we need more houses, and places where people already live are the best places to put them.
hunton69 said:
So what is the point asking for neighbours comments they all get ignored until they find one in favour.
Pointless
If you want to object you need to use planning reasons. A large distribution park round here got over 400 negative comments but the ones taken into consideration were pollution including noise pollution from the 24x7 nature of operations, impact on traffic congestion, etc. Pointless
gt_12345 said:
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?
We've got loads of developments going up around where I live and the issue I have with them is there seems to be invariably no thought given to improving the infrastructure to go with them. More often than not there's no more doctors, dentists, schools, etc, to cater for all the extra houses and people and when you're talking about developments in relatively small villages even things like access roads can soon start to become inadequate if the number of vehicle movements increases significantly. 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?
But try putting that to planning departments and it's like knocking your head against a brick wall - they just seem to stick to their pre-determined script and move on to approving the next development regardless. Based on experience round here there's lots of development going on but precious little in the way of thoughtful planning....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff