8 houses on green in front of house

Indigo_and_Violet

Have a read of your local plan. If there are aspects of the development that are not in-keeping with the local plan (i.e. it identifies a shortage of smaller affordable homes and these are going to be large and expensive) then that can be a fruitful grounds for objection. 

mattyprice4004

The advice so far is spot on - we're in a similar situation, but it's important to have a balanced view. 
When your house was being built there will have been someone else upset about it - it's just a fact of life that most potential plots will be built on either now or in the future. 

If you can't come up with solid reasons then they'll likely go ahead; our population is growing and they have to live somewhere I'm afraid. 
Our quiet dead-end road is about to have three times as many homes on it as it does currently, but I've just had to accept that and get on with life. 

Dither

[Deleted User] said:

Problem is everyone's a NIMBY and also everyone wants to preserve the green belt. Developers don't want to have to build amenities or transport links so many of the remaining sites are less than ideal. We need new houses desperately.

As such I think it's going to be a difficult one to fight. The council will have targets for new homes that they need to meet.

Not everyone is a "Nimby", there appears to be some Richards.  With the decimation of industy there is significant amounts of brown belt land that can be used. The issue is that it is cheaper to build on virgin land that it is to bring previously used land up to a buildable condition. 

True we need houses but we don't need shoeboxes rammed on every scrap of turf that's up for grabs.

Section62

Dither said:

With the decimation of industy there is significant amounts of brown belt land that can be used. The issue is that it is cheaper to build on virgin land that it is to bring previously used land up to a buildable condition. 

True we need houses but we don't need shoeboxes rammed on every scrap of turf that's up for grabs.

Part of the problem is that the land which is available for redevelopment as housing isn't necessarily where people want to live, and often the availability of brownfield land goes hand in hand with a lack of employment opportunities.

It also doesn't help that the planning system allocates the number of new homes required around the country - almost on the basis of everyone having to share a bit of the pain - rather than taking a more strategic approach like they did in the 50's and 60's of developing New Towns and concentrating development/regeneration in locations where infrastructure could be more readily improved.

I agree completely that not everyone is a NIMBY - the OP has every right to object to this proposal.

To be healthy physically and mentally people need some space in the area where they live, and developers (generally) shoehorning extra properties into what little open space is left in our towns and cities are effectively recreating the opportunistic slums that the late Victorians worked quite hard to rid themselves of.

[Deleted User]

Dither said:

[Deleted User] said:

Problem is everyone's a NIMBY and also everyone wants to preserve the green belt. Developers don't want to have to build amenities or transport links so many of the remaining sites are less than ideal. We need new houses desperately.

As such I think it's going to be a difficult one to fight. The council will have targets for new homes that they need to meet.

Not everyone is a "Nimby", there appears to be some Richards.  With the decimation of industy there is significant amounts of brown belt land that can be used. The issue is that it is cheaper to build on virgin land that it is to bring previously used land up to a buildable condition. 

True we need houses but we don't need shoeboxes rammed on every scrap of turf that's up for grabs.

I don't disagree about small houses. Most new homes are micro houses that are well below the minimum recommended size for human habitation.

What's a "Richard"?

[Deleted User]

Section62 said:

Dither said:

With the decimation of industy there is significant amounts of brown belt land that can be used. The issue is that it is cheaper to build on virgin land that it is to bring previously used land up to a buildable condition. 

True we need houses but we don't need shoeboxes rammed on every scrap of turf that's up for grabs.

Part of the problem is that the land which is available for redevelopment as housing isn't necessarily where people want to live, and often the availability of brownfield land goes hand in hand with a lack of employment opportunities.

It also doesn't help that the planning system allocates the number of new homes required around the country - almost on the basis of everyone having to share a bit of the pain - rather than taking a more strategic approach like they did in the 50's and 60's of developing New Towns and concentrating development/regeneration in locations where infrastructure could be more readily improved.

I agree completely that not everyone is a NIMBY - the OP has every right to object to this proposal.

To be healthy physically and mentally people need some space in the area where they live, and developers (generally) shoehorning extra properties into what little open space is left in our towns and cities are effectively recreating the opportunistic slums that the late Victorians worked quite hard to rid themselves of.

Mental and physical health are a lost cause in most towns. The way we build them is never going to work very well, and people have been trying to fix it for decades without success.

This actually seems like a good example. Land was allocated but never developed into a proper park, and is the usual half baked "throw in some green space" attempt anyway.

lookstraightahead

This is why I've always lived in hilly areas, in old properties. 

I have lived in tiny places that are the same price as detached new houses but you can't build round them.

My parents have a lovely house built in the 80s. But it has been built round as much as possible. In fact, their houses are worth quite a lot which is why they are built around. The one saving grace is that a bit is next to woodland.

op, I personally would move.  

Greymug

Not much OP can do. Well, they can oppose to it and maybe organise something with other neighbours.

But, as someone said, there is a need for houses and local authorities are always looking for money so they'd welcome for new houses to be built that will generate new council tax revenues.

GDB2222

Given the number of people on MSE, I wonder whether we could all voice objections? Would the local council take note of objections from non-local people, though?

Greymug

GDB2222 said:

Given the number of people on MSE, I wonder whether we could all voice objections? Would the local council take note of objections from non-local people, though?

Why would this issue be of your concern if you're not local?