How to stop massive house building proposal?

[Norm]

If they keep building all over it, then sooner or later, the UK will end up like Los Angeles - one huge ugly sprawl!

Bit of a misconception there, as London is bigger than LA (600+sq miles for London, 470-ish for LA) and more populated (8.2m for London, 3.8m for LA). You can, of course, start including the wider LA area but then you'd also be looking at including most of the south east of England to keep the comparison valid.

As for looking like one ugly sprawl, this piece has a few flaws in it, IMO, but it still says that there is more woodland than "urban landscape" in England, and that's before any consideration that 3/4 of the "urban landscape" is greenery anyway.

So, if 80% of the current population can live in urban areas which takes up only about 3% of the land area, I think that it will take a while for your vision of ugly sprawl to become reality.

As for the OP, unfortunately, we need millions of new houses in this country. Whilst the natural response is to want them to be built in someone else's back yard, we're all going to have to face the reality that there is a logical flaw in that desire.

 

[vernon]

As an aside Japanese knot weed is very easy to introduce, very difficult to eradicate and people will not get mortgages on houses where it is within 25m .......

There the matter of legality:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Listed under Schedule 9, Section 14 of the Act, it is an offence to plant or otherwise cause the species to grow in the wild.

And unintended consequences. Selling a house within 25m of knotweed will also be difficult for the neighbours of the newly contaminated land. Still - it's an ornamental plant and will great pleasure to the perpetrators

 

[PaulB]

We are very well informed on the proposals, one of which can be seen here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5ayqevcuxl0vwjr/HNmBvsVdfB/PlanningEnvironmentalReport19539309.pdf

The area had a building embargo lasting until 2017 slapped on it by John Prescott some time ago due to investigations being carried out as to the viability of the land. It is brownfield leading on to an open expanse of greenfield. Once the tories got in though, and the economy failed to react to their commands, the idea came about that all land should be built on so the previously sensible ruling on planning permission was all relaxed or removed altogether, which undoubtedly pleases Persimmon enormously.

Our local member of the House of Lords is Lord Tony Greaves and he was at the original planning meeting openly mocking the snidey suits from Persimmon busily lying to the concerned public to ease their fears over this monstrosity.

 

[Red Light]

We are very well informed on the proposals, one of which can be seen here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5ayqevcuxl0vwjr/HNmBvsVdfB/PlanningEnvironmentalReport19539309.pdf

The area had a building embargo lasting until 2017 slapped on it by John Prescott some time ago due to investigations being carried out as to the viability of the land. It is brownfield leading on to an open expanse of greenfield. Once the tories got in though, and the economy failed to react to their commands, the idea came about that all land should be built on so the previously sensible ruling on planning permission was all relaxed or removed altogether, which undoubtedly pleases Persimmon enormously.

If it is a brownfield site then IMHO it should have priority for development over using greenfield sites. We do need more housing and more housing is always going to be in somebody's back yard and not welcomed by them. Best you can probably do is to sell your house to the developer at a premium so they can build a proper access road and then buy yourself a nice house well out in the country away from any building risk. Otherwise its a case of accepting that brownfield sites are going to get developed and better a housing development than an industrial site.

 

[BLUE(UK)]

Just remember that when you buy an house/land, you're not buying the surrounding views.

Too much NIMBY is what is going on.

 

[Red Light]

Just remember that when you buy an house/land, you're not buying the surrounding views.

Too much NIMBY is what is going on.

The worst examples of which are people who buy a house near an airport and then complain there is an airport there

 

[BLUE(UK)]

The worst examples of which are people who buy a house near an airport and then complain there is an airport there

Or live near a pub and complain that there's noise at night.
Clowns.

 

[PaulB]

After a local meeting at our councillor's house earlier, we have excellent grounds for believing this proposal is not the done deal the builders think it will be. The worst of worst case scenarios is believed to be a compromise that will be of benefit to the area but the local (and not so local) Swampys are getting involved as they did, rather annoyingly, ten years ago. More details as and when.

 

[Arch]

Or live near a pub and complain that there's noise at night.
Clowns.

If you buy a house near an existing pub/airport/church, then you can't complain about drinkers/planes/bells.

If you buy a house not near any of that, and then it's imposed on you, I can understand some dissatisfaction.

(I'm with Colin though, use up the disused buildings first, and make the use of houses we have more efficient. I'd ban second homes for a start, especially the nice little cottages in the country that stop local young people from staying in the area because house prices are too high, and those houses stand empty for weeks at a time)

 

[classic33]

Letter to the local Government Obudsman, clearly stating how the application will directly affect you. Your council is then legally obliged to process your complaint.