Nimby!

[spandit]

For those of you who don't know, NIMBY stands for "not in my back yard" - it basically describes someone whose only objection to a plan or activity is that it is happening nearby.

My neighbours over the road have a bit of land and they recently announced to the neighbourhood that they are going to be setting up a glamping site. Now, I know it's not exactly the kind of thing most on here are into (although seeing the amount of kit some lug around, maybe not!) but they were initially talking about 4 sites. After discussion with the house immediately next door, they've cut that to 2 - they're going to dig hobbit houses so the vast majority of people wouldn't even see them (the only person who might be able to will be screened by all the planting they've done).

Anyway, the amount of incredible opposition that has arisen has really surprised me (and them). People are worried about "all the extra traffic" - now bearing in mind that over the road from them is an industrial estate and although we are in the countryside, there are about 25 homes on the road, most of them with quite small gardens - we're not talking about vast estates here! Quite how anyone will notice two extra cars arriving on a Friday and leaving on a Monday, I don't know.

The funny thing is, another neighbour came round to my house and spoke quite aggressively about his objections. I mentioned, in passing, that it was something we had considered doing. Now, my boundary is about 130m from his (and obscured by hedges & another property - he's not even on the same road!). Where we might be doing the camping is a minimum of 270m from him (and buried amongst the trees I've planted) but he objected to that too as it would "change the face of the neighbourhood". The face of the neighbourhood seems to be old people who are completely resistant to change and who like to see fields left as green parkland, rather than anyone actually trying to make a living. I've since had other people contacting me to object to my plans (which wouldn't happen for a few years anyway, even if they existed, as the trees are all tiny).

I just started this thread after seeing mention of wild camping in the New Forest - it's why I think just sneaking off into the woods without telling anyone is probably the best plan - as long as no trace is left, people can't get wild ideas about what might be going on.

 

[The Lord Poncho]

It's the job of the planning officers to see through all the bluster. As long as the scheme promoters put forward a clear reasoned argument, and can draw on facts a figures (e.g. the increase in traffic on the road will about to 0.000x% of the current traffic etc etc), then they shouldn't have a problem. Just because somebody objects, it shouldn't halt the proposal - as long as that objection doesn't have merit.

 

[pysen78]

Although I do think nimbyism is a crap stance on any subject, I do relate to the feeling.
I can relate to not wanting change that's beyond my own control, in my immediate surroundings.
That goes for the neighbour painting his house in an ugly colour, as well as, authorities deciding to build a nuclear waste site nearby.
The trick is, obviously, to not take oneself and oneselfs interests too seriously. The rules work as they should, generally.
I shake my head at it everytime I hear of people who build on new parcels on the edge of town, and 30 years later objects to letting the next generation do the same.
Almost as bad as the people who move in next to an airport, then protests the noise. Get over yourselves already!

Now if the neighbours are taking things into their own hands and violating the valid permissions for their land, that's another story. That's THEM putting their own interests first.

 

[Toddy]

Things like this worry people because suddenly their quiet wee bit of the world is on the net, etc. and known and they don't know the character of the strangers who'll suddenly be in their midst, or will it bring in travellers or trouble.

One neighbour described it like this; "In summertime our children sleep outdoors in tents, but we know everyone around us, we know who everyone is and who they're related to. Not sure I'd let them if there were strangers camping over the burn though".

I'm not hard core nimby, but I can understand the concerns of people who want their quiet life and the security they take for granted, not to be disturbed by strangers that no one can vouch for.

M

 

[XRV John]

I am consulted on a lot of planning applications in my job (in charge of waste and recycling for the local council) and when reading the objections always chuckle when they cite anything negatively affecting house prices. What??? One man's palace is another man's hovel. Their ideas of value and worth may be totally different to other people's. I am a motorcyclist and have no objection to the nearby dirt bike track which I can hear every weekend. It doesn't bother me because I am used to engine noise. But to other's it is the Devil's breeding ground whereas I see kids and adults enjoying themselves and not ripping up green lanes or back streets.

 

[Toddy]

I hate the noise of the dirtbikes that occasionaly tear up the back lane. The brats riding them have no consideration for anyone else too. They want to go 'fast', they don't want to let anyone else past (the lane is used by elderly dogwalkers, grandparents pushing buggies, etc.,) one cretin knocked one of my neighbours off her feet and into the hedgerow as he skidded round the bend and caught her wee dog's leash with his boot
I freely admit I have lost any tolerance for them. It's a footpath, it's a nature walk; if Mummy and Daddy can afford to buy you a bike they can damned well afford to take you to a proper site and not use paths folks are walking on that run right next to houses and gardens.

Do you think if they silenced the engines the brats would still think they were so cool ?

Sorry if I'm offending you XRV John, but these riders are brats in every sense of the word.

M

 

[mrcharly]

sounds like those brats need somewhere to ride; like john's dirt track.

nimby nimby - I've strongly opposed one big development, and two small ones. The big one because it was on farmland that floods and would double the number of people in a small suburb (that already has traffic problems). One river development that would take a council-owned stretch of riverbank that is used by locals all the time and make it into a fenced-off bank with a road, used only by members of a yacht club. I opposed a development opposite my house because the plans didn't include enough parking and no storage for each house.

 

[mountainm]

Funny timing. We received notice about 3 weeks ago that a housing developer was going to submit an application to build 150 new homes in our village, this is on top of 80 already agreed. They want to build them outside the current planning envelope on what is currently a field (which also serves as flood relief).

On the one hand I totally get the need for cheap housing, there's not enough in this country. (However there are enough houses - if we cracked down on second homes, and empty properties it would substantially alleviate the pressure). On the other hand our little doctors surgery is struggling to cope as it is, and more pressure on the school won't be good. So I'm a nimby. Build them somewhere else.

But that somewhere else will be someone else's backyard. What I'd like to see is the residents of a village sharing in the profits of such a development. I'm sure the pubs, shops and restaurants would prosper, but if everyone else did too maybe there wouldn't be so much opposition.

 

[British Red]

WeWe absolutely do not need more houses in this country (cheap or otherwise). What we need are less people. If people stop saying we need more homes, roads, schools etc. and addressed the real problem of over population, all the symptomatic issues would be resolved.

 

[Corso]

WeWe absolutely do not need more houses in this country (cheap or otherwise). What we need are less people. If people stop saying we need more homes, roads, schools etc. and addressed the real problem of over population, all the symptomatic issues would be resolved.

way too political for this forum....

 

[British Red]

Probably, but no more political than the "need for more affordable housing". If a point can be made, its rebuttal must be allowed too.

 

[spandit]

I can understand the concerns of the neighbour (singular) who will have the camping in view (at the end of his garden he has a paddock and it's over the fence of that, not that close) but for the other rabble rousers to be already complaining about traffic is laughable. Where we'd like to offer camping isn't overlooked at all (I think there is one house that might be able to see but they're some distance away and besides, the trees aren't grown yet).

Population control, BR? There are some HUGE issues with that and as Corso said, it's a bit political...

 

[British Red]

There are indeed, and even huger issues if we are too naive and too afraid to address the fact that we cannot feed, house, clothe or warm our population.


Still, I have replied to the point I disagree with, so I'm happy to drop it

 

[mountainm]

WeWe absolutely do not need more houses in this country (cheap or otherwise). What we need are less people. If people stop saying we need more homes, roads, schools etc. and addressed the real problem of over population, all the symptomatic issues would be resolved.

That's a whole can of worms. You could restrict immigration? Control births? Cull the elderly? How do you plan to do it? You may have a solution. But if it isn't a feasible one then it isn't a solution.

I'm not disagreeing with you Red, just saying there's no single solution to the problem - for example where I work we struggle to find people with the skills we need that we can afford to pay as we're competing with London (we're in Leeds) - so we get better candidates from abroad. We do look, we look really hard.

My solution would be to calculate the capacity of each country and have a subsidy paid to that country (by the EU) if you are near or over your capacity, whilst simultaneously penalising countries with large net emigrations to pay for that fund. It's then in a countries interest to hold onto or encourage more people to come over. But we can't just shut the doors now, the horse has bolted so to speak.

 

[pysen78]

I suppose UK is similar to Sweden and many other countries in that respect. The whole of the economic system is built on an ever increasing population, supporting the generations before them in their old age. We don't know of any other way of life than growth. Sustainable or not.

On housing. I work in the industry. The way things work over here, all suitable land within reasonable commuting distances is used up, and we're in the process of building on all the sites that were previously deemed unfit. Prices of housing nowadays warrant a whole new array of methods for building on poor ground, but usually it becomes more expensive than in the feasibility studies. As a result the profit margin diminishes, and the developers seek other ways of upping the profit. Building larger, for example. Which means, houses that are 150% of the built-up area the plot was planned for in the zoning process are shoe-horned through. The councils don't want to "loose" the development so are lenient regarding parking standards etc.

Above reasons are all valid for objecting to a development in my view. If the development isn't thought through, with parking and sanitary solutions, by all means, stop it. No one should want "bad" housing to be built. It will continue to be bad for future generations.
Thing is, most of the time, it's not about that, and people protest because they don't "want" the development. Many times, arbitrary "rare" species will be found on the site, or whatever...

 

[santaman2000]

For those of you who don't know, NIMBY stands for "not in my back yard" - it basically describes someone whose only objection to a plan or activity is that it is happening nearby.

My neighbours over the road have a bit of land and they recently announced to the neighbourhood that they are going to be setting up a glamping site. ........
......Anyway, the amount of incredible opposition that has arisen has really surprised me (and them). People are worried about "all the extra traffic" - now bearing in mind that over the road from them is an industrial estate and although we are in the countryside, there are about 25 homes on the road, most of them with quite small gardens - we're not talking about vast estates here! Quite how anyone will notice two extra cars arriving on a Friday and leaving on a Monday, I don't know.

The funny thing is, another neighbour came round to my house and spoke quite aggressively about his objections. I mentioned, in passing, that it was something we had considered doing. Now, my boundary is about 130m from his (and obscured by hedges & another property - he's not even on the same road!). Where we might be doing the camping is a minimum of 270m from him (and buried amongst the trees I've planted) but he objected to that too as it would "change the face of the neighbourhood"........

It wouldn't help your case but the perfect reply would be, "Well I'm sure we all HOPE it changes the face of the neighborhood."

.....I shake my head at it everytime I hear of people who build on new parcels on the edge of town, and 30 years later objects to letting the next generation do the same.
Almost as bad as the people who move in next to an airport, then protests the noise. Get over yourselves already!.......

Ain't that the truth. It never ceases to amaze me how many such people complain about airport noise and want the airports closed, yet they make no such complaints about the railroads.

.......One neighbour described it like this; "In summertime our children sleep outdoors in tents, but we know everyone around us, we know who everyone is and who they're related to. Not sure I'd let them if there were strangers camping over the burn though"......

Ironically most child molesters are trusted close friends or family members.

That's a whole can of worms. You could restrict immigration? Control births? Cull the elderly? How do you plan to do it? You may have a solution. But if it isn't a feasible one then it isn't a solution.

I'm not disagreeing with you Red......

Therein lies the problem. The real, long term solution involves the unconscionable.

I suppose UK is similar to Sweden and many other countries in that respect. The whole of the economic system is built on an ever increasing population, supporting the generations before them in their old age. We don't know of any other way of life than growth. Sustainable or not.......

Most of the developed world to be honest.

 

[Swallow]

That's a whole can of worms. You could restrict immigration? Control births? Cull the elderly? How do you plan to do it? You may have a solution. But if it isn't a feasible one then it isn't a solution.

I'm not disagreeing with you Red, just saying there's no single solution to the problem - for example where I work we struggle to find people with the skills we need that we can afford to pay as we're competing with London (we're in Leeds) - so we get better candidates from abroad. We do look, we look really hard.

My solution would be to calculate the capacity of each country and have a subsidy paid to that country (by the EU) if you are near or over your capacity, whilst simultaneously penalising countries with large net emigrations to pay for that fund. It's then in a countries interest to hold onto or encourage more people to come over. But we can't just shut the doors now, the horse has bolted so to speak.

Or you could just skill up the people you have. I just found out today that Geography in England and Wales for guys the same age as me meant doing things like "Holland". In my (relatively rubbish, state) school in NI, it was more like Geology, plates landscapes and weather systems.

Also have a watch of David Attenborough's "how many people can live on planet earth", in which he suggests Education is the surpising answer to one of the main problems.

 

[mountainm]

Or you could just skill up the people you have.

We do where possible - but sometimes you don't have the luxury of time.

 

[rik_uk3]

Not the best thread of recent times, plenty of forums out there if you want to talk about immigration control and 'reducing' the population, I humbly suggest that some here seek them out and post there...BCUK is not the place for these type of threads IMHO.

 

[British Red]

That's a whole can of worms. You could restrict immigration? Control births? Cull the elderly? How do you plan to do it? You may have a solution. But if it isn't a feasible one then it isn't a solution.

I'm not disagreeing with you Red, just saying there's no single solution to the problem - for example where I work we struggle to find people with the skills we need that we can afford to pay as we're competing with London (we're in Leeds) - so we get better candidates from abroad. We do look, we look really hard.

My solution would be to calculate the capacity of each country and have a subsidy paid to that country (by the EU) if you are near or over your capacity, whilst simultaneously penalising countries with large net emigrations to pay for that fund. It's then in a countries interest to hold onto or encourage more people to come over. But we can't just shut the doors now, the horse has bolted so to speak.

Like all problems, the first step, and a very important point is to accept that it is a problem.

Step 2 must be to halt net immigration which is acknowledged as the only reason we have population growth.

Step 3 surely to stop financially incentivising having children in our tax and benefit structures.

Those are just off the top of my head, its a complex problem an needs a complex solution, but playing ostrich to the biggest problem in the world is no answer.