Are They NIMBYs or Do They Have a Point?

[Ignitionnet]

Just asking if you guys could take a look at http://trag-sos.moonfruit.com/#

This wound me up so much I went on the following rant:

What a surprise, all the 'Save Our Skyline' photos seem to be people in their late 40s and up complaining about *their* town. Stuff all the people who can't afford to buy in the area as they are priced out, stuff the housing shortages, we're alright Jack.

It's no wonder the town is stuck in the 70s with people queuing up to ensure it stays there. I cannot afford to buy here due to only just making a 6-figure income and you've the nerve to complain about your skyline.

You have an extremely messed up set of priorities matched only by your profound sense of self-interest. It's no wonder there is a noted and long-standing housing shortage in this Borough with people like you lining up to complain whenever a developer has the nerve to build where you don't want them to.

The unfortunate thing is, of course, that you have far more time to complain about these things than I do to support them - regrettably I have to spend a lot of time at work to pay my rent - the one inflated massively by the housing shortage your attitudes exacerbate.

I am frankly really rather fed up of the same old (in more ways than one) demographic messing things up in this area. Low-rise is not viable, the housing will cost too much and will deliver too few homes to have any significant difference.

Of course maybe that's the plan, you guys can spend some of your probably government provided equity buying these low-rise properties up, as first time buyers will have no chance, and then rent them out. Everyone is happy. Well, you are happy and that's what matters, right?

The response from the admin of the Facebook page was:

Carl why not move to Croydon there are lots of lovely tower blocks there. They must be cheap being there are so many for you to choose from.

Please look at the actual plans as on their site - http://trag-sos.moonfruit.com/#/station-images/4543932357
Google Streetview of existing site (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Regal+House&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=Regal+House&hnear=Twickenham,+Middlesex+TW1+1RT&cid=0,0,12709282033457502987&ei=fz9gTdnzLsGo8QOfrJRa&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=5&ved=0CEYQnwIwBA)

And of course the campaigners (http://trag-sos.moonfruit.com/#/meet-us/4543932361)

Am I being inconsiderate or are they being NIMBYs? If you have a wander through Twickenham it's dilapidated, old fashioned, a 70s wreck of a life support system for the two stadiums.

As far as housing goes thanks to the same NIMBYs being in charge at the council anything over 3 storeys can only happen in a couple of sites, and despite huge issues with supply, acknowledged, restrictions have increased.

4.1.12 The Borough’s housing is mainly in owner-occupation (68% according to the 2001 Census), with 15% rented privately, and 12% rented from a housing association. Affordability is a key issue, with house prices considerably higher than the London average. With the exception of the City, Richmond upon Thames has the highest average household income (£47,418, Paycheck 2007 CACI) of any London borough, but the ratio between earnings and house prices is such that first time buyers are unable to afford even the least expensive properties in the Borough. Affordability can have an impact in terms of overcrowding and poor quality housing, and also for the recruitment and retention of key workers, essential for delivering local services.

Meanwhile their approach to resolving this issue:

Taller Buildings will be inappropriate in all areas of the borough except the identified areas within Twickenham and Richmond (Maps 2 and 3).

Twickenham (Supplementary Policy Document published with detailed design guidance)
On the station - buildings up to 4/5 storeys at the highest point and should step down to 2/3 storeys towards Cole Park Road,
On the Sorting Office – buildings up to 4/5 storeys at the highest point and should step down towards the west end of the site to 3 storeys and 2/3 storeys towards Heatham House, whose setting should be respected.
On Station Yard buildings should not exceed 3/4 storeys to prevent adverse impacts on the residential context
On garages in Mary’s Terrace buildings should not exceed 2.5 storeys with development on the front of the site in line with existing houses in Mary’s Terrace.

I'm off on a bit of a rant. Should I just accept it or carry on doing what I'm doing - go over the council's head to the GLA and Eric Pickles?

Incidentally a new 'low rise' development, in the cheaper area of the Borough, Teddington was just released. 2 bedroom apartments start at a bargain £349,995.

[chris9991]

I suppose people's memories of the high rised flats built in the sixties and seventies may lead them to oppose any new development.

However, all the people in this country need a home, maybe high rise would reduce the homeless in an area.

Maybe, there is a need for a market intervention or just privatise the local planning office? :confused:

[Ignitionnet]

This is epic:


Support or Object
Please say whether you are... (if you are objecting please give your reasons below).
Objecting to it

Comment *
Please give details of your objection or supporting comment (with reasons for it) and indicate other option(s) you think the Council should consider.
I have read the plan and agree with most of the proposals laid out within.
However I feel I have to bring to your attention the area on the plan that I object to. I feel that the affordable housing policies are in direct opposition to the other policies. I believe that the affordable housing policy contradicts with the Sustainable Future policies and the Protecting Local Character policies.
I feel there are already too many houses in the borough and adding more would lower the standards of the area, reducing green space and increasing traffic, crime, litter, and disorderly conduct amongst others.
Could I please lodge my strong opposition to all aspects of the affordable housing policies.

[Cobbydaler]

This is epic:

I guess you are saying there are no pre-scripted responses for acceptance: :D

[Paul K]

We are opposing a development here, the GLA wants 600+ homes built on a small patch of land that it will have to compulsory purchase and kick businesses off before it can do anything with the land.
Why are we opposing it? Well let's see,
600+ homes, no new school or investment in expansion of the local school,
No new health center or dental facilities,
No improvement to the current stretched sewer system,
No investment or improvement to the road scheme which already grid locks at peak time,
No provision for any parking for the new homes which asks the question... where are the cars going to go that these people own since the development is at least a 20 minute walk from the train station, 30 minute walk from the tube station and the bus service is not overly good at times.
We aren't against the provision of low cost housing etc but we are against the provision of housing where housing cannot be sustained or supported by the infrastructure in use.

[Ignitionnet]

I actually get your objections - rather a different story with this one as it will be on top of a train station and is 1/4th the size.

[Osem]

Less than a mile from here a row of about 10 semi-detached houses with fairly large gardens has been replaced with a 2 x 4 floor blocks of flats (c. 40 units IIRC) plus a row of about a dozen town houses and associated car parking behind. I can understand why those who live adjacent to the site would object to that scale of development, especially as the value of their properties has suffered considerably as a result and the gardens they used to look out on have been replaced with bricks, cement and tarmac. Call it Nimbyism, call it selfishness, call it what you like but IMHO it's entirely predictable, especially when so many people have such a high proportion of their assets tied up in bricks and mortar.

[martyh]

Taking an un biased view ,i can see what the local residents are objecting to .If i read the plans correctly the developement will be located next to Regal House overlooking Cole Park rd, which appear on the saterlite view to be high value detached properties .If that is correct then the local residents have a good point ......but

On the other hand the same people in Cole Park rd already live next to a flyover(london rd),next to a train station and is already overlooked by a block of flats(Regal House) ,the same applies to residents of Cheltenham Av .I would summise that a proportion of the residents have bought these houses with these structures already in place and i suspect that the plans for the new developement have been around for a few years ,unfortunately people who buy houses in town centers have to be prepared to accept redevelopement because by their very nature towns will always grow

[Will21st]

Someone always objects to new developments in Britian... quite frankly I find it extremely selfish and highly annoying,no wonder we're stuck in the past.

[Maggy]

Sadly my kitchen window once looked out on a garden..Now all I have is a brick wall.:(

I can see both sides of the argument and ultimately someone will lose out.

I know how it feels to lose out.:(

[Stuart]

We are opposing a development here, the GLA wants 600+ homes built on a small patch of land that it will have to compulsory purchase and kick businesses off before it can do anything with the land.
Why are we opposing it? Well let's see,
600+ homes, no new school or investment in expansion of the local school,
No new health center or dental facilities,
No improvement to the current stretched sewer system,
No investment or improvement to the road scheme which already grid locks at peak time,
No provision for any parking for the new homes which asks the question... where are the cars going to go that these people own since the development is at least a 20 minute walk from the train station, 30 minute walk from the tube station and the bus service is not overly good at times.
We aren't against the provision of low cost housing etc but we are against the provision of housing where housing cannot be sustained or supported by the infrastructure in use.

When House of Frasier closed the Army and Navy store in Bromley, they had two department stores linked by a bridge. They sold one the TKMaxx, and sold the other to a developer.

This developer was going to build a complex housing 400 flats. They were, IIRC, going to provide parking for a fraction of those flats, and provide bike sheds for a lot more. This, apparently, was part of a policy to encourage bike ownership. and nothing to do with the fact that the land they were planning to build 400 flats on was nowhere near big enough to house anywhere near 400 cars.

That was my main concern with the plan, as Bromley doesn't really have enough parking places now, without adding an extra 400 homes. My secondary concern is that while the road system around there would probably cope with the extra traffic during weekdays (they've designed the road system to cope with the load at the weekend which is a lot higher), it would not cope with the evening rush hour, and all day Saturday and Sunday.

Thankfully, the development appears to have been shelved.

[jrhnewark]

Stuart, that's really interesting as I live in Bromley and didn't know about that. (Alright, I live in Orpington - ish - but we gravitate towards Bromley as it's the 'borough town').

I don't see the point of the people in Twickenham.

They're not objecting to a wall specifically backing onto their gardens - a fair point by someone above - nor are the objecting to a massive increase in traffic in a town centre, just to get apartments next to a railway station that will fetch them another £20k per apartment.

I think there has to be some level of objectivity involved. If there are 'general' concerns, they should be raised as such (and ignored 90% of the time). If there are 'specific' concerns, then of course they should be looked at carefully and measures taken to counteract them as far as possible.