Want to build a new house in my back garden

[IMM]

They do. They are not allowed to.

Who are these "they"?

What ball.

< snip Nimby ignorant tripe >

[IMM]

Been at the port again?

< snip tripe by an idiot >

[mich]

Most of the people on this DIY newsgroup for a start - one of the most often asked questions is " how do I kill the mice that have come into my house.... or a variation on that theme.

[Peter Crosland]

Probably not of much relevance unless you can get the principal of development agreed. Take a look at the local plan on the Mid Suffolk DC website at

wish my local authority would do a similar thing on their site!

[Owain]

"mich" wrote | Most of the people on this DIY newsgroup for a start - one of | the most often asked questions is " how do I kill the mice that | have come into my house.... or a variation on that theme.

rats, wasps, cats or other people's children seem to be the favourites

Owain

[IMM]

To have nature around you, you don't need to have vermin in the house. You are strange.

[mich]

I do not have vermin in my house but they do exist in my garden , most suberbanites will tolerate neither.

[IMM]

Tripe! Most people like hedgehogs, frogs and the likes in their gardens.

[nomatter]

I have to agree

[The Natural Philosopher]

Let's face it IMM has to live with himself, and whilst I am a natural philosopher, he is a just a 'natural' as we used to call 'em.

So he is all the vermin he needs.

[Mike Mitchell]

My first thoughts are that in my opinion most local councillors and planning officials who get to make a decision on what is built are a bunch of old fogies driven by nimbyism, oneupmanship and sour grapes. If they set their minds against you, for any reason, hell will freeze over until these petty jobsworths with the power of Fidel Castro to change their minds, or have it changed for them by higher powers.

I would never bother myself. I have heard of several examples where there were perfectly good proposals to even just replace an existing property, let alone build a new one next door, and the council/planning authorities have just said, no, you may not. One would have better luck getting on Schindler's List.

The way things are planned in this country is archaic. It is one of the reasons why so few properties are being built and why there is no cheap housing any more for the lower paid to get on to the housing ladder.

However, you might consider selling the land instead to one of the larger builders, who would probably know which strings to pull and palms to grease, as that what it comes down to with our marvellous system from the middle ages.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

Duh, they are not burning a finite resource like oil or gas! Hint: You can grow more wood...

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

I hope he's got plenty of money, as the kind of spec you just came up with will cost a fortune! Probably half a million to build, I reckon.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

I agree. I just don't think they need to quite so high-spec as your ideal type to be valuable to the environment as well as being nice to live in.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

Have no fear! The jobsworths are always vigilant when it comes to preventing entrepreneurs who want to make or build something! Because they couldn't, no one else is allowed. I call it the Verboten mentality.

In any case, why must the locality benefit? What business is it of "the locality" that someone has the nous to move there and pay someone money to buy their property or utilise a plot of waste ground that will otherwise contribute nothing to the environment, given that it has only a couple of ramshackle eyesores of barns on it? It's like we must all do "the locality" a favour for having the good grace to allow us to live in their community. Maybe would-be builders should adopt the approach of certain Muslim pilgrims and crawl the last few hundred yards to the council offices on their stomachs, just to make everyone aware of how committed they are to "the locality".

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

Why? And in any case, what is wrong with building four houses on two acres? That's a fair bit of land per house, is it not?

If it doesn't now, then surely there will be the enticement for others in the near future to move into the area and set up as doctors, employers, and thus create the infrastructure. This sounds like a Nimby argument to me.

Yes, to put the spanner in the works of anyone who wants to add to the housing stock, mainly out of spite.

Why is it a "trick" to discover what kind of house would be preferable and then trying to appeal to some residual trace of planners' better nature? Of course, I believe the kind of "trick" they understand is the one where you offer to build them a new scout hut for free, or something like that. What the planners mean when they say "no" is not "We don't like the effect on the environment," but "We don't like you yuppy types down from Town who can afford to live here when we can't."

Good typo! Maybe it's a log cabin the putative builder should be proposing!

But he will have left behind him TWO houses where once there was only ONE! In other words, he has contributed to the housing stock and made it just a tad easier (though infinitesimal, given the lack of new houses being built) for others to get on to the housing ladder. Every additional house does this in its own small way. This is why even the Govt concedes that we should be building more houses.

I see wildlife and trees everywhere and I live within 40 miles of Oxford Street. I have a hedgehog in my garden. If you're so concerned for wildlife, ask farmers up and down the land why they have ripped out so many thousands of miles of hedging that once offered shelter to so much wildlife.

MM

[mich]

They have just ( over the last couple of years) built 200 houses on the lower slopes of a National Park down the road from me ( its also the outskirts of a small town). The town shops are now closing down. People say its connected because the newcomers travel 20 miles into the city rather than shop locally.

You can no longer get an appointment at the local health centre because of the sheer weight of numbers now registered. They attempted to appoint two more doctors but another two left and they have not been able to find replacements.

They kicked off a number of patients from further out - like where I live and those now have a 10 mile trip to the next nearest doctor. The local health centre was just four miles from my village centre. We have mostly elederly people and no transport system.

There isnt a dentist for fifty miles and none will come in either.

The A&E at the local cottage hospital closed down and was relocated 14 miles away so that it could be bigger to accommodate the influx of newcomers to the new build houses.

The builder promised affordable homes ( they are not in any way eco) but reduced this planning gain from 20 to just 6 on appeal). The new houses have sold at 250K each. Locals cant raise that money so they are still looking for homes. All building new houses has done is put a strain on the resources by increasing numbers in the area. The demand was not "local" , nearly all the houses have been sold to people coming from other parts of the country.

That in turn has put pressure on the local economy as there are few jobs anyway and now there are more people chasing them. People are thinking nothing of travelling 70/80 miles daily in various directions ( each way) in order to find work - that is those who can afford the transport as there is no public transport. Thats more pressure on the environment with cars of course. There isnt one single centre of employment , and the centres that do exist are small, none of the public transport routes would be viable. Further since its nearly a three hour drive ( we are talking Cornish lanes here not four lane motorways) each way to get to a job, if you can get one!

There needs to be a balance somewhere between the environment and this so called need for houses. One of the neighbouring LA 's has put some controls as an experiment (in part of its area) on the sale of houses recently in an attempt to cut down the migration and give locals a chance at getting homes. Its seems to be working. House prices/ jobs/ care facilities etc in that authority seem to be coming under some control . Of course you have to prove you have links there qualify to live and register there.

Maybe its nimbyism but maybe some of us need a bit more nimbyism and a bit of jftl ( just for the locals)

An eco house as being proposed on this board would not be anywhere within the reach of locals and I cant see that the bloke trying to build it is doing it for any altruistic reasons. Its a money making venture - to sell to the silly Londoners I suppose? Over inflated prices and lots of nimbyism.

In fact i have to say, since we got "invaded" in my village , there has been less building and far more nimbyism So maybe thats a good thing. But they also like to buy a house with an half an acre or so garden and then try to build in it. Sell up and scaper to another one with a large garden ( like my new neighbour - hence I got the field before he got it!) and they move further out and once they get planning permission , as you have rightly said, they erode the building line.

So yes, Nimbyism reigns OK. I make no apologies for that. They want to make money , let them do it in their own back yards, not mine.

Good. I am glad spite still exists in the world and that some people still know how to use a spanner.

I certainly hope so.

No they dont - see above, What is done is it makes it a tad easier for someone to migrate and pay silly prices and push people out, whilst at the same time putting increased pressure on the local economy and the local resources and the local services.

And it certainly isnt eco friendly.

If you're so concerned

Not where I live they havent.

[IMM]

You reckon? On what do you base this groundless assertion? Zero heating houses cost no more to build than any other. It is primarily design and selecting the correct materials.

[IMM]

< snip tripe by a snot >

[IMM]

good post.