8 houses on green in front of house

user1977

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?

There's no particular requirement that objections be made by locals. But an objection isn't going to carry any more weight simply because of the sheer number of people making it. And obviously councillors aren't likely to feel any particular obligation towards objectors who aren't constituents.

lincroft1710

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?

This could be counter productive. A lot of objections from non affected random people will look like the OP has a weak case and decided to enlist the help of rent-a-mob.


Even if PP was refused, the developers can appeal and from appeal decisions I have read, Planning Inspectors may well rule in the developers' favour

Section62

Greymug said:

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?

People may be concerned about the loss of green space in towns and cities, or concerned that by removing areas where people (especially children) can play and exercise we (collectively) are storing up problems for the future.

It goes back to the point that not everyone is a 'NIMBY' - some people would say this kind of development shouldn't be happening in anyone's back yard.

If people were only concerned about things in their immediate locality we (collectively) would be a lot worse off.

And sometimes it takes people who are slightly removed from the immediate locality to see what impact a development (or loss of facility) might have on both the people who do live there, and on society as a whole.


To answer GDB2222's question - it depends on the grounds of objection.  Something strategic, like loss of greenspace, raised by a non-resident, couldn't simply be ignored by the council.

But then they should already have policies of this nature within their local planning framework, and the planner/committee making the decision should have regard to those policies whether or not anyone raises the issue in the form of an objection.

The usefulness of such objections depends on the weight the decision maker would have attached to that particular issue anyway - in general terms (not specific to this case) it might make a difference if the council was already predisposed to granting consent and the weight of objections made them acutely aware that there could be repercussions if they made the decision for the wrong reasons.

Greymug

Section62 said:

Greymug said:

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?

People may be concerned about the loss of green space in towns and cities, or concerned that by removing areas where people (especially children) can play and exercise we (collectively) are storing up problems for the future.

It goes back to the point that not everyone is a 'NIMBY' - some people would say this kind of development shouldn't be happening in anyone's back yard.

If people were only concerned about things in their immediate locality we (collectively) would be a lot worse off.

Does it go the other way around? Instead of an objection, can I send my support to the developers' plans? I'm not local either so how can I do it?

user1977

Greymug said:

Section62 said:

Greymug said:

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?

People may be concerned about the loss of green space in towns and cities, or concerned that by removing areas where people (especially children) can play and exercise we (collectively) are storing up problems for the future.

It goes back to the point that not everyone is a 'NIMBY' - some people would say this kind of development shouldn't be happening in anyone's back yard.

If people were only concerned about things in their immediate locality we (collectively) would be a lot worse off.

Does it go the other way around? Instead of an objection, can I send my support to the developers' plans? I'm not local either so how can I do it?

You can make any sort of representation you like. Pretty commonplace to have supportive ones (or neutral ones just raising extra info etc). But they'll only pay attention to the ones raising relevant planning issues. Everybody makes them in the same way, by submitting them to the planners.

newsgroupmonkey_

I think the NIMBY comment is a little unfair.

It's one thing when you move to a town or a village and live next to a field and said field gets taken over by housing. We all know that's a risk that can happen. In the same way, you might have a house that has bags of land and a developer buys it and splits it into a number of houses.

But living in a nice cul-de-sac with a green in the middle? That's land pinching IMHO and you're entirely changing the nature of the area.

As someone else said, surely if the local children play on there, people use it for dog walking and so on, it's detrimental to the people living there.

Section62

Greymug said:

Section62 said:

Greymug said:

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?

People may be concerned about the loss of green space in towns and cities, or concerned that by removing areas where people (especially children) can play and exercise we (collectively) are storing up problems for the future.

It goes back to the point that not everyone is a 'NIMBY' - some people would say this kind of development shouldn't be happening in anyone's back yard.

If people were only concerned about things in their immediate locality we (collectively) would be a lot worse off.

Does it go the other way around? Instead of an objection, can I send my support to the developers' plans? I'm not local either so how can I do it?

Of course you can.

But bear in mind the comments submitted are open to public inspection, and hang around on the internet for a very long time, so anybody positively supporting the "bulldozing of open spaces used by kids to play in, just to build another 'x' boxes", might find their motives being questioned.

For the support to carry any significant weight it would really need to be based on a local need for additional housing of this type, provided in this location and this form, and that the need outweighs the competing needs for that land.

For example, why would you support the whole of this piece of land being developed with 8 two-storey dwellings, each with a private garden, vs 8 dwellings provided in an apartment block, retaining  (say) half of the community space for use by everyone?

A comment consisting solely of "We need more homes in the UK" is certainly a valid response, but not one which should carry a great deal of weight over and above that already existing in the local plan.

Jenni_D

[Deleted User] said:

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.

What's a "Richard"?

Presumably a reference to the short form of the name, but is probably a censored word here.