From the Dorset Echo:
VILLAGERS in Puddletown fighting a 15-home development in their community have become early beneficiaries of new planning guidelines.
The guidance recently issued by the Government to prevent ‘garden grabbing’ was one of the reasons cited as West Dorset District Council’s development control committee rejected a planning application by Wyatt Homes for the development south of the village High Street...
Following the meeting, local vicar the Rev Roy Bennett said: “I am very pleased because it was an inappropriate development for that small site in the centre of the village. We are not opposed to development – we are opposed to shoe-horning in houses overlooking neighbours to the extent that they were.”
As you can see from Google Maps, it was a choice between 'shoe-horning' aka 'garden grabbing' or not building at all, as there is absolutely no other land in the vicinity on which these fifteen homes could possibly have been built:
View Larger Map
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
NIMBYs Of The Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I don't know why they build houses in towns. Nasty over-crowded places full of nothing but people complaining that the shops are shutting down because nobody goes shopping there on account of nobody lives in town and it's too far to walk.
I wonder how long it has been Puddletown? It stands on the River Piddle.
WOAR, well spotted. If you cast your eye to the south west you'll see where Nroddy and Brig Ears live.
I have unsuccessfully searched for a good measure of how many planning permissions will be assisted or denied by the Localism Bill. Does anybody know if there is a reporting mechanism for tracking the number of planning permissions granted for new build properties? The reason I ask is that it appears to be difficult to measure the effect that the Localism Bill will have upon the numbers of new builds achieved. Mark has opined that the Localism Bill will make it hard to get planning permission for new building (I agree) but how can this be demonstrated statistically? It might be argued, by a politician, that the number of new builds achieved in the future will be determined by other factors such as land bank value fluctuations, credit availability for buyers and so on. In the absence of a good planning permission metric, sticking the blame on the government for inhibiting building could be difficult. From a politician's perspective, the Localism Bill might be viewed as a masterstroke.
There are plenty of houses in the rough end of Middlesbrough where these people could live. So we don't need any houses in Puddletown for them.
Of course they'll have to come here for us to employ them, and buy things in our shops and pubs to keep them open for the rest of us. But not in cars, of course.
QG, good thinking. If we had the numbers for how many planning applications were approved and how many were turned down for a number of years, this would help show the impact of the Local Fascism Bill. (I think knowing the number of approvals is not enough - you have to know the number of refusals as well).
But so what?
The whole point of it is to choke off new construction, so that would make it political masterstroke as you suggest. The other side could also point out that the number of refusals is exaggerated by the fact that the refuseniks just keep re-applying again and again (so what looks like ten refusals is in fact only one).
And of course they'll say "the number of new builds achieved in the future will be determined by other factors such as land bank value fluctuations, credit availability for buyers and so on." Which is nonsense actually - the stat's for the 1920s and 1930s show that there was only a very brief dip in construction.
BFOD, I thought you were going to suggest shipping a few existing PT residents up to Middlesbrough - that would have made more sense.
"absolutely no other land in the vicinity"
Are you being sarcastic? AFAICS, there's a nice little field right next to the playing field and overlooking noone with access via Kingsmead. Or is this the disputed plot? - I'm assuming it's the bit of wasteland next to "Tourist Attractions in Dorset".
And anyway, how do you know that Puddletown needs 15 new homes, or even if it does, then that these 15 new homes are going to be sold at a price that any FTB can afford? West Dorset is prime retire-to-the country land and it's very likely that that is the market being aimed at.
B: "Are you being sarcastic?"
Yes.
"And anyway, how do you know that Puddletown needs 15 new homes?"
I assume that a builder wouldn't be so daft as to build houses for which there was no demand.
"how do you know that... these 15 new homes are going to be sold at a price that any FTB can afford?"
I don't, but that doesn't matter. Whether we add more rungs to the 'housing ladder' at the top, middle or bottom, the net effect is that people will all be able to shuffle up a bit.
Builders rarely allow an application to be refused officially. They withdraw it before it goes to the planning meeting so it doesn't appear on the records as a refusal. Looks better if they want to re-apply at a later date. The planners don't like to look like they're changing their minds, so if there's a refusal already on record for a site, it makes it harder to get planning in the future.
Well, that's a bugger. I live 6 miles north of there and no doubt they will start looking to despoil my village now ;-)
Seriously though, Puddletown is a good area to develop as a lot of money was spent upgrading the A35 between Poole and Dorchester and even more is being spent on the Dorchester bypass for 2012.
However, as pointed out above, this part of the country is rife with nimbysim, not least because most of us moved here to get away from all the overcrowding caused by housing being shoehorned in to ever denser built up areas in the rest of the country.
The situation is going to get worse. When we were searching the area for something to buy an estate agent pointed out that they are starting to see real pressure on local housing as the baby boomers are starting to reach retirmemt age and looking to move to somewhare quiet and at the same time releasing equity which they always assumed was their pension pot. Well I've got news for them, when we moved away from the area 20 years ago to the home counties I doubled the mortgage and halved the size of the house. When we moved back I could only get something of similar size such is the pressure on house prices in these parts.
S, thanks for info from the coal face. In other words, even if the statistics QG was looking for were available, they would be nigh meaningless. Not daft, these NIMBYs?
SF, having checked my workings, the annual LVT rate in West Dorset would average £31/sq yard/year. So at least these NIMBYs will get a light bashing with the LVT cricket bat.
There are a couple of fields at the south which are surrounded by building on 3 sides. I guess this shows how wonderful it that we have no LVT & people can wait forever to be offered enough money without having to pay anthing on their investment.
@SimonF "a lot of money was spent upgrading the A35 between Poole and Dorchester " Not by the Council it wasn't. That upgrade was a freebie, being the Community Enhancement (?) element of the contract to rebuild new A30 between Exeter and Honiton (that's where Swampy did his tree swinging).
Got rid of the last traffice light between Truro and Poole and now the residents don't wiah to share their good fortune.
@Banned,
To be fair that junction was an absolute nightmare so everyone who uses that very busy route benefitted, inckuding a large number of holiday makers.
But yes, Doeset is definately the land of Nimbys, and proid opf it from what I have seen so far.
NC, I think NIMBY-ism is a battle between landowners - those with planning permission (in the shape of a house) and those without (farmers - who get CAP subsidies instead). The next generation and the economy generally are just collateral damage.
B, SF, yup, Home-Owner-Ism is a one way bet. Somebody else pays for the (rather excellent) new roads and existing homeowners bank the winnings.
One way of fixing this would be to have a proper referendum, 'for' or 'against' the 15 new homes. All the names of the people who voted 'against' go in a hat, fifteen names are drawn and their houses are demolished to prevent 'over-crowding' in their precious village.
"I don't, but that doesn't matter. Whether we add more rungs to the 'housing ladder' at the top, middle or bottom, the net effect is that people will all be able to shuffle up a bit."
Not if the retirees come from somewhere where there is a surplus of housing, like Middlesborough. Of course the builder knows he can sell the houses - to retirees. In what way can you say that Puddletown needs 15 more households of retired folk? If it needs houses, it's for first time buyers; it doesn't benefit them a jot if some people in Outer London are able to buy a house vacated by someone moving to Puddletown. By the same token, Puddletown is no worse off by not having the 15 new houses, but a lot worse off in terms of being overlooked etc. if they do. It doesn't take a genius to work this out and it doesn't take a NIMBY to object to it.
B, I'm a libertarian.
Whether demand for those houses is from wealthy retirees from Outer London or from wealthy retirees from, er, Middlesbrough is neither here nor there. I can see the appeal of moving to the South West when you're old and you feel the cold (I wouldn't be averse myself, to be honest).
Chances are, it's wealthy retirees from Outer London, who then sell up to a young couple from Middlesbrough who want to move down south.
As to 'overlooked', what do these people want - to Protect The Hallowed Greenbelt or to Prevent Garden Grabbing. Clearly they want both, but you can't have it both.
Of course, in an LVT/CI world, this would all sort itself out. People in Middlesbrough would have a higher guaranteed minimum income by staying in Middlesbrough; people in Piddletown would be either happy for there to be more newcomers (mor LVT payers) or if they want to prevent new development to keep their own property values high, at least they would be compensating the rest of society for their mean spiritedness.
ps, WomanOARaft, the coy Victorians renamed it Puddletown for shame, it having come to their notice during the fight for the rights of workers to Unionise.
"Chances are, it's wealthy retirees from Outer London, who then sell up to a young couple from Middlesbrough who want to move down south."
But there's absolutely nothing in it for the Puddletowners. Under the current system they stand to gain nothing, zilch, diddly squat, even if you cavil at the disbenefits. If your garden is not overlooked now and will be if the area is built on, how is that not a disadvantage to you and why is it mean-spirited not to try and stop it happening. If Network Rail proposed to close your local station, would you think it mean spirited to object? It's exactly the same principle of private gain and public loss.
B: "But there's absolutely nothing in it for the Puddletowners."
So what? I might as well argue there's nothing in it for existing car owners if other people in the village are allowed to buy a car. Is that an argument for allowing local people to decide who can own a car and who can't?
"If your garden is not overlooked now and will be if the area is built on..."
Well in that case, build on The Hallowed Greenbelt instead.
Nice name for a town though, Mark.
"So what? I might as well argue there's nothing in it for existing car owners if other people in the village are allowed to buy a car"
Indeed, and you'd be right, but there is no downside. Would you be so keen for your neighbour to buy a car if the only place he could park it was across your driveway, though?
"Well in that case, build on The Hallowed Greenbelt instead."
Puddletown's too small to have a greenbelt.
B: "Would you be so keen for your neighbour to buy a car if the only place he could park it was across your driveway, though?"
Nope. I've posted about this, as long as I can get in and out of my drive, I'm not fussed.
Post a Comment