Early-retirement wannabe

DairyQueen

Superficially, my location sounds like retirement nirvana.

The driest and warmest (except in the winter) region of the UK. A village which, courtesy of its distance to the nearest town (12 miles), services the surrounding hamlets. We have: doctor, dentist, vet, greengrocer, small supermarket (housing the post office), butcher, baker, florist, newsagent, estate agent, IFA, hardware shop that sells everything not supplied by the other retailers, two pubs (one of which offers off-sales, home-made pizza at weekends), a church and chapel, leisure centre (also hosts the Indian takeaway), top-rated secondary & primary schools (latter hosts the library), first-class, hole-in-the-wall burger place, two hairdressers.

We are surrounded by glorious countryside. The coast is 20 miles and the direct rail line into London is 12 miles (around 1hr 15 mins).

We are a community of only 2,400 souls so not doing so badly.

But....

We wait at least a week to see our doctor of choice and forget calling the GP surgery in an emergency at weekends and bank holidays. The helicopter ambulance service is an absolute necessity as it takes at least 45 mins for a regular ambulance to reach us - assuming one is available (and it never is). It's normal to wait a minimum of 3 hours for an ambulance and for a locum GP to pay a house call.

The community hospital closed a decade ago.

The bus service runs north-to-south but the nearest town is to the west so, unless you want an 1.5 hour bus journey before your rail journey (or visit to the optician) a car is a necessity.

Our village High Street is the location of properties built between the 14th and 19th centuries. Needless to say most do not have off-street parking (including the businesses). Successive generations of planners have kicked the parking issue down the line. We now face a critical shortage of parking for residents and visitors. Cars are parked on the street nose-to-tail on hill and vale. The main thoroughfare is single lane for most of its length.

Then there is the the planning situation. Ah, yes.....Anyone who thinks that they are safe in the sticks is suffering delusions.

Our local LA's mantra is "but this is a business". Any planning application submitted by a business will gain approval regardless of whether it complies with planning policy and law. We now have a shipping distribution centre a mile away and the articulated lorries much prefer to take the (banned) short-cut through our narrow streets than the approved route. We also have a large brewery a similar distance to the north. It's expansion has ensured that 2,500 lorries per year now negotiate the narrow lanes.

The antique shop which I moved next to a decade ago a is now an internet distribution centre.

A 100-house estate was built on the edge of the village 5 years ago. This has added a few hundred extra commuters to the narrow roads. A predatory house builder is now seeking permission for a 300-house estate. That would increase the population by a third. The massive community levy charged by the LA will be trousered to prop-up their budget. Meanwhile our schools, doctors and roads are at capacity.

My outlook over fields to the rear is sacrosanct as this is the flood plain. Not even our local imbeciles (oops... planning officers) have dared grant approval to develop an area that spectacularly floods once every 20 years.

Welcome to rural life in the 21st century.

Mr DQ and I own two modest properties. The other is in a town much closer to London and facilitates his commute. He is another reluctant retiree. The rural pad facilitates care for my elderly parents.

Are we unusual in looking to upsize in the future? Are we also unusual in seeking a property surrounded by fields and thus (thanks to our local planners' development bias toward communities which offer services) relatively safe from the attention of developers?

I would happily exchange the services and facilities I currently enjoy within walking distance for peace/quiet/minimal traffic.

This is now not the place I chose to live. Chances are that the retirement home you choose now will have morphed into something entirely different a decade or so.

kidmugsy

Decades ago a friend of my wife said : "Always buy in a place that has been ruined already". We didn't. Well, it's being ruined now. And the guiltiest party isn't the LA, it is the (former) Cabinet Minister John Prescott.

hyubh

DairyQueen wrote: »

A village which, courtesy of its distance to the nearest town (12 miles), services the surrounding hamlets. We have: doctor, dentist, vet, greengrocer, small supermarket (housing the post office), butcher, baker, florist, newsagent, estate agent, IFA, hardware shop that sells everything not supplied by the other retailers, two pubs (one of which offers off-sales, home-made pizza at weekends), a church and chapel, leisure centre (also hosts the Indian takeaway), top-rated secondary & primary schools (latter hosts the library), first-class, hole-in-the-wall burger place, two hairdressers.

We are surrounded by glorious countryside. The coast is 20 miles and the direct rail line into London is 12 miles (around 1hr 15 mins).

This is now not the place I chose to live. Chances are that the retirement home you choose now will have morphed into something entirely different a decade or so.

If I understand you correctly: development up to the point you moved in = fine and dandy, the natural course of affairs; any development since = ridiculous, completely against the natural order...?

We wait at least a week to see our doctor of choice and forget calling the GP surgery in an emergency at weekends and bank holidays. The helicopter ambulance service is an absolute necessity as it takes at least 45 mins for a regular ambulance to reach us - assuming one is available (and it never is). It's normal to wait a minimum of 3 hours for an ambulance and for a locum GP to pay a house call.

Interesting, so NHS services in a large village are a lot smaller-scale than those of a large town.

The bus service runs north-to-south but the nearest town is to the west so, unless you want an 1.5 hour bus journey before your rail journey (or visit to the optician) a car is a necessity.

Ditto public transport? This really is surprising - what about all those OAPs with their free bus passes...?

Then there is the the planning situation. Ah, yes.....Anyone who thinks that they are safe in the sticks is suffering delusions.

Our local LA's mantra is "but this is a business". Any planning application submitted by a business will gain approval regardless of whether it complies with planning policy and law.

Naturally, you are completely opposed to any development that may make better NHS services and public transport economical.

The antique shop which I moved next to a decade ago a is now an internet distribution centre.

And let's not get started about plebs working on the minimum wage - this is a nice village!

A 100-house estate was built on the edge of the village 5 years ago. This has added a few hundred extra commuters

Or dear, yet more working age people... probably include young families (urgh - get the screaming brats away)...

The massive community levy charged by the LA will be trousered to prop-up their budget. Meanwhile our schools, doctors and roads are at capacity.

Council spending is terrible when done on things under its own remit, but great when done on things that aren't... I see...

Mr DQ and I own two modest properties. The other is in a town much closer to London and facilitates his commute. He is another reluctant retiree. The rural pad facilitates care for my elderly parents.

I bet they are very modest indeed

I would happily exchange the services and facilities I currently enjoy within walking distance for peace/quiet/minimal traffic.

So... forget all you've just said, you'd rather live in the middle of nowhere, cut off from everything...?

kidmugsy

hyubh wrote: »

Council spending is terrible when done on things under its own remit, but great when done on things that aren't... I see...

I think that sneer unwarranted.

For example, my objection to "development" near us is partly simply a conflict of interest. I'd like not to be surrounded by new builds, and other people have other preferences. So far, so ordinary. But my second objection is quite different: the roads that will be required for the new inhabitants (and indeed for us) are not forthcoming - neither in new roads nor expanded capacity of old ones.

The councils pass it all off as a non-problem because they believe that the new inhabitants will cycle everywhere. The technical term for that is a "lie". They believe nothing of the sort. Even they could not be so stupid.

marlot

DairyQueen wrote: »

Superficially, my location sounds like retirement nirvana...

We were nearly seduced by the idea of rural life, but decided instead that the best place for us was on the edge of a small city [a big town really], where we could still function if unable to drive.

DairyQueen

hyubh wrote: »

If I understand you correctly: development up to the point you moved in = fine and dandy, the natural course of affairs; any development since = ridiculous, completely against the natural order...?

You omitted the accusation 'nimby'. I'm surprised.
My point is not zero development, it's about balanced development. It's about increasing population and housing whilst reducing investment in infrastructure.

The LA's housing quota must be met and communities like ours are targeted for a disproportionate amount courtesy of local services which, ironically, have been compromised by the process.

Until the last decade this community developed at a sustainable pace. Plenty of new housing but in small developments of up to 30 and pockets of in-fill. A small industrial estate on the edge of the village, etc. This was sustainable as it was accompanied by a commensurate increase in school places, NHS services, businesses, parking, blah de blah.

We are a mixed community: young/old, balanced across the income spectrum, commuters and local businesses/workers, incomers and families that have lived here for centuries.

The 100-house estate blew the infrastructure. Insufficient local jobs meant more commuters. The GP surgery had no capacity to expand, nor did the schools. The quality of NHS services for the entire community degraded. Our schools reduced their catchment area excluding children previously eligible in some of the surrounding hamlets (who are now bussed to schools further afield). The LA ignored the impact on traffic and parking. Busy people don't walk their children to school, nor do they walk to the shops or the GP surgery. They use cars on their journeys in/out of the village. Children do not walk or cycle to school as large lorries, rush hour traffic, narrow streets and pavements are not a safe mix.

Free bus passes are useless if there is zero public transport to the nearest town/rail station.

There have been zero benefits from economies of scale for our community. The contrary applies. The existing infrastructure has simply been spread more thinly. Concentrating medical and community services in urban centres 25 miles distant is useless if they are inaccessible to those that need them.

The LA has withdrawn funding from most community services coincident with the population increase. The leisure centre is now a charity. The library has been relocated to the school, has limited opening hours, and is staffed by volunteers. The play group/after-school clubs are also part-staffed by trained volunteers. Social events for older people are run and hosted entirely by church/chapel volunteers. Volunteers provide 'first responder' medical assistance and transport to hospital appointments. They also run support groups for young families, carers and those with alzheimers and cancer. The community emergency team are all volunteers. Volunteers clear the pavements, litter pick, run community spaces, care for the elderly and disabled and deal with weather extremes. The local fire service are all volunteers and so are the community police (publicly-funded equivalents withdrawn in the last decade).

Medical and emergency services, public transport and community services may be 'better' for those who live in urban centres courtesy of concentration. Meanwhile, those living further afield wait hours for an ambulance, can't see a doctor without a week-long wait, and fill the void in other services with volunteers as best they can.

hyubh wrote: »

And let's not get started about plebs working on the minimum wage - this is a nice village!

This jibe falls on deaf ears. Most of the 'plebs' who have replaced those previously paid by the public purse don't receive any 'wage' and the community has fought long battles to maintain housing and create jobs that meet the needs of all demographics. This is not a posh village; it is a vibrant, mixed community. It has maintained a 'specialness' courtesy of geography, self-sufficiency and balanced development.

hyubh wrote: »

Council spending is terrible when done on things under its own remit, but great when done on things that aren't... I see...

You mean things like schools, social services, emergency services, adult education, traffic control, parking, road maintenance, public transport, environmental protection? Odd, I thought all of these fell under the 'remit' of councils but such investment here is conspicuous by its absence. Presumably, such essential spending is focused in towns and cities.

hyubh wrote: »

I bet they are very modest indeed

A 2-bed, Victorian semi and a 2-bed flat.

I guess we could have pitched a caravan in the garden of parents' home but a bit chilly in the winter. Or, of course, I could have abandoned my parents to the vagaries of LA-funded care.

hyubh wrote: »

... you'd rather live in the middle of nowhere, cut off from everything...?

Cut off from what? Traffic? Noise? Lorries thundering passed the house? Playing chicken each time I venture to the local shops?
Yes please.

Medical services? Community services?
The LA is doing a good job of achieving this without needing to move house.

The only benefit of staying put is the proximity to local shops but the LA is now prioritising online businesses over walk-in retailers. The first of our shops has been handed-over to a web-exclusive retailer.. It wont be the last.

Why bother shopping in person when I can buy all I need from my living room and have it delivered to the door in the middle of a field? Of course, I will be adding to the local traffic congestion. I will also be one less customer for the local retailers that are used by the LA to justify the over-development which, in reality, is deterring people whose custom those businesses rely on - i.e. those whose lives are spent largely within the locality.

So, do I want to spend retirement in an urban area well supplied with publicly-funded services and other facilities?

Each to his own but I'll take my chances in the middle of that field.

Mnd

kidmugsy wrote: »

I think that sneer unwarranted.

I think the whole post was unwarranted, the tone of it was rude in my opinion

kidmugsy

Mnd wrote: »

I think the whole post was unwarranted, the tone of it was rude in my opinion

I do hope, though, that nobody will call in the MSE censors for a post like that. I find the increase in censorship across society most unpleasant, and far more of a threat to intelligent conversation than the occasional misjudged post could ever be.

JoeEngland

hyubh wrote: »

If I understand you correctly: development up to the point you moved in = fine and dandy, the natural course of affairs; any development since = ridiculous, completely against the natural order...?



Interesting, so NHS services in a large village are a lot smaller-scale than those of a large town.



Ditto public transport? This really is surprising - what about all those OAPs with their free bus passes...?



Naturally, you are completely opposed to any development that may make better NHS services and public transport economical.



And let's not get started about plebs working on the minimum wage - this is a nice village!



Or dear, yet more working age people... probably include young families (urgh - get the screaming brats away)...



Council spending is terrible when done on things under its own remit, but great when done on things that aren't... I see...



I bet they are very modest indeed



So... forget all you've just said, you'd rather live in the middle of nowhere, cut off from everything...?

Funny you should mention screaming brats. Since a new estate was built in the field next to our house there's one family in particular which is full of noisy kids. It means we can often no longer enjoy sitting in our garden because if they're in their's then all we can hear is constant shouting and actual screaming. So when I put in objections to the planning application was it nimbyism? You bet, because the more people that are around us the lower our quality of life is.

gadgetmind

We have the best of both worlds IMO. We're within five miles of the centre of Leeds yet in a leafy backwater with hardly any traffic noise and a *huge* park just the other side of our back fence. It's less than £8 to the centre by Uber, there are three buses per hour at < £2 each way, and I can cycle it in around 18-22 minutes depending on direction.

We feel like we're living somewhere remote yet have lots of neighbours who're quiet unless mowing the lawn, and all the facilities of a large city within easy reach.