>Council leader Phil Bialyk concluded: “It’s not about who lives in it, it’s about the impact it’s going to have on the local community and also people who potentially end up living there.”
I’ll take a side order of snobbery with that NIMBYism please, waiter.
>Half were classed as affordable, with the majority of those for social rent.
Hmm I wonder why it was rejected…
Is the “missing middle” a thing in the UK?
Well built, medium density housing, with good public transport & active travel, decent Internet (i.e. symmetric gigabit), and amenities (e.g. shops, cafes etc) nearby is almost certainly what we need. Regenerate the urban landscapes.
Not vast wastelands of car dependent, identikit shiteholes that continually drain council funds due to their low tax revenues and high structural costs.
There’s a new scheme near me, and to my eyes it looks like hell on Earth. No public transport, beside a motorway, and the “centre” is a shopping mall. Yuck. But they are being sold as “executive homes”, probably because the airport is 20 mins down the road. They are just god awful.
>”It’s not about who lives in it, it’s about the impact it’s going to have on the local community and also people who potentially end up living there.”
you wot?
its not about who lives in it, yea. its about the people who lives in it. laik. yea.
hypocritical snob.
Rejected by the local council (of NIMBYS) and will be accepted on appeal – and will likely either be 200 houses to squeeze more in or 99 as that gets around the requirement to provide any social housing, either delivering more profit for the developer.
Exeter is a city? And the refusal is because of perceived damage to rural setting? Isn’t this all just a fancy way of Exeter saying they don’t want urban sprawl and expansion of their city?
About a mile from the nearest railway station. Not ideal but not horrific.
Not at all true. You can hate both cancel culture and the Tories. But to be fair at this point I’m beginning to think you are all stupid…
They’ll get around it by lowering the social aspect to 25% or the minimum, or removing something else such as local connection to get another grant, or making another change part way through and changing plans and someone will be related to someone on the board and houses will be built. Nimbys will moan but eventually people in the new builds will become nimbys and protest the next estate being built and so on. The circle of housing estates.
9 comments
>Council leader Phil Bialyk concluded: “It’s not about who lives in it, it’s about the impact it’s going to have on the local community and also people who potentially end up living there.”
I’ll take a side order of snobbery with that NIMBYism please, waiter.
>Half were classed as affordable, with the majority of those for social rent.
Hmm I wonder why it was rejected…
Is the “missing middle” a thing in the UK?
Well built, medium density housing, with good public transport & active travel, decent Internet (i.e. symmetric gigabit), and amenities (e.g. shops, cafes etc) nearby is almost certainly what we need. Regenerate the urban landscapes.
Not vast wastelands of car dependent, identikit shiteholes that continually drain council funds due to their low tax revenues and high structural costs.
There’s a new scheme near me, and to my eyes it looks like hell on Earth. No public transport, beside a motorway, and the “centre” is a shopping mall. Yuck. But they are being sold as “executive homes”, probably because the airport is 20 mins down the road. They are just god awful.
>”It’s not about who lives in it, it’s about the impact it’s going to have on the local community and also people who potentially end up living there.”
you wot?
its not about who lives in it, yea. its about the people who lives in it. laik. yea.
hypocritical snob.
Rejected by the local council (of NIMBYS) and will be accepted on appeal – and will likely either be 200 houses to squeeze more in or 99 as that gets around the requirement to provide any social housing, either delivering more profit for the developer.
Exeter is a city? And the refusal is because of perceived damage to rural setting? Isn’t this all just a fancy way of Exeter saying they don’t want urban sprawl and expansion of their city?
About a mile from the nearest railway station. Not ideal but not horrific.
Not at all true. You can hate both cancel culture and the Tories. But to be fair at this point I’m beginning to think you are all stupid…
They’ll get around it by lowering the social aspect to 25% or the minimum, or removing something else such as local connection to get another grant, or making another change part way through and changing plans and someone will be related to someone on the board and houses will be built. Nimbys will moan but eventually people in the new builds will become nimbys and protest the next estate being built and so on. The circle of housing estates.