Fourteen Years of Tory Rule Gave NIMBYism a Free Pass in the UK

10 comments

1. *From Bloomberg News reporter Damian Shepherd:*

   The Conservative Party let local anti-development skeptics to grow in influence over the past 14 years by choosing not to intervene in the vast majority of UK homebuilding applications.

   That’s based on calculations by Bloomberg News using data from the Planning Inspectorate and National Archives, which shows the number of planning applications reviewed by the secretary of state — known as a “call-in” — dropped to five in the previous financial year from an average of more than 50 per year during the 2000s.

   The government has the right to take over the determination of a planning application rather than letting the local authority decide, a tool often used to push development through in areas where local protectionism is rife.

   It suggests a hands-off approach to planning from the Tories, who came to power in 2010 with a promise of giving local authorities more control over development in their communities. The result has been a transfer of power to the not-in-my-backyard, or NIMBY, lobby that’s contributed to the country’s acute housing shortage.

2. Only people that would vote for a policy like that, are people that don’t own a home or any other asset. Why would anyone want a flood of new homes to lower house prices?
   Labour once again promising a utopian future

3. If you want to look at how much NIMBYism can ruin a city, look no further than Bristol.

   NIMBYs alongside issues with our local council are the reasons why derelict properties are such a common sight. You’ll see plenty of disused buildings on the high street, and even some large buildings that have been derelict for many years like the old Bank of England branch near Castle Park and the Grosvenor Hotel in Temple Meads.

   The old Royal Mail sorting office next to Temple Meads station was only pulled down a few years ago, and before that it looked like something straight out of Pripyat post-disaster.

   The two mayors we had before voting to abolish the position (George Ferguson and Marvin Rees) only made the situation worse…

4. I’ll tell you what happens.

   I live in a small town. My parents bought a house here for £40,000 in 2002. House prices are now £300,000 if you’re lucky.

   I will be forced to move into an extortionate flat in the nearest city in order to ‘move out’ and I’ll be lucky to find a job despite my qualifications.

   Huge housing estates the size of towns are tacked on to my town and others around us. Locals, and the children of locals cannot afford to move into these houses. Therefore we end up with thousands of people who’ve moved up from london (and often commute to london). School places are scarce and people fight over them. We have a single hospital between 4 large towns. You cannot get a new dentist. GP appointments take months. These new estates are built without any infrastructure and make it worse for everyone who already lives here.

   The other ‘development’ is huge warehouses who are largely automated or whose workers come from the next county. What good do they do us?

   If they were building houses for US and we could afford them, if the developments were giving US jobs, we’d all be in favour.

5. Just going to share Britmonkey’s vid – I dk not agree on everything, but it’s the closest I have felt to the reaction people should be having…

   https://youtu.be/b5aJ-57_YsQ?si=smaEteslStyPPV8m

   This is not just a Tory issue, but definitely made worst under their government.

6. So local democracy and power BAD, centralised London control, overriding local wishes, GOOD. Got it.

   Except – [https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/economic-growth/regional-development/devolution/2024/04/labour-government-mayors-local-devolution-constituencies-parliament-jack-shaw](https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/economic-growth/regional-development/devolution/2024/04/labour-government-mayors-local-devolution-constituencies-parliament-jack-shaw)

   *What role would mayors play under a Labour government? The opposition has promised a wave of devolution in England.*

   *Labour mayors currently oversee many of England’s core cities – not least Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Cambridge. They will, in theory, be tasked with delivering the growth policies Labour has envisioned, including its green prosperity plan.*

   Written by Jack Shaw -Senior Advisor at Labour Together, Fellow at the Productivity Institute and Fellow at the Bennett Institute. – In 2020, Labour Together helped to rally the party behind Keir Starmer, who united a divided party, and brought Labour back to the British public.

7. I have a house and live in a ‘village’ of about 6000. We recently had plans approved for 600 new homes right next to us. Although I understand we need more housing, the council has given no thought on the overstretched local infrastructure. Not to mention the road that will be used as the access is a narrow lane that always gets blocked at peak times.

   I never understood NIMBYism when living in an urban city. But now I do understand and can sympathize with people that don’t want development near them.

8. I’m a bit concerned labour might not be much better in this regard. The decision to devolve planning powers seems like it will only let them off the hook while local government NIMBYs go wild. After all it is the councils and mayors who block anything from being built in the first place.

9. Where I live, the-then Tory administration wanted to redesignate a municipal golf course as land suitable for housing. The golf course was installed back in the 1970s as a buffer to limit urban spread. It sits between multiple housing developments.

   There was heavy opposition (correct in my view as the proposals were going to be car-dependent low-density suburbs). The Tories were kicked out of office and lost control of the council, largely because of this.

   Since then, the Tories have switched completely and now openly criticise any effort to develop land in the area. Their hypocrisy is utterly shameless. Building – bad. Cycle lanes – bad. Traffic lights – bad. Pedestrian crossing – bad (yes, really, they campaigned against pedestrian crossings).

   The former golf course btw, is now an untamed meadow used by hundreds of people every day. It’s quite lovely and desire paths have developed across it that help people walk away from the roads.

   Meanwhile, there’s a bit of land next to the local railway station that remains undeveloped when it should have a block of flats on it. And another bit of land that’s been undeveloped for a good 30 years, where more flats should be built, for god knows what reason. It frustrates me that the former golf course was the “prime target” for development, and not two patches of very useless scruffy land filled with concrete.

10. Reminder that Bloomberg is pure neo-liberal, c-suite propaganda. If they’re criticising something or advocating for it, look very carefully at the detail.

    They don’t want more housing so you can actually get on the ladder, they want more houses that corpos can buy up and rent back to you or that can be used as investments by foreign banks.