new home building

Our area is full of new houses and more are being built yet we've not got the infrastructure to cope and many are being built in estates without a local shop or community centre and a long way from the main shopping area. And then they wonder why there are mental health problems.

Well said Mishap and also FlicketyB [your comprehensive post covered everything that my 2 liner didn't explain; I was too pushed for time to write more.]You are right, we don't need more very low level jobs in Oxfordshire as housing is already moving upwards yet again [house prices I mean].We are, as a nation, being ridden over roughshod yet again.

What a can of worms this is! Our very tiny village is obliged to look at affordable housing and many efforts have been made to find suitable sites. The most suitable place is a derelict old building and land that the owner refuses to sell for historical stroppy reasons, so we live with this eyesore in the middle of the village while beautiful sites are having to be considered for building.

The sot of houses that they plan to build are (quite ridiculously) ones without garages - and this in an isolated village with no public transport! They will build them and no-one will want them. Several sites have already been rejected by the planners because of the serious drainage problems around here - and thank goodness they did reject them or we would have even more flooding.

I do not pretend to know what the answer is, but the recent floods in so many areas should surely have taught us that concrete and tarmac play havoc with the land's natural drainage.

The Local Planners are constrained by government diktats. They are told they have to allocate land for a given number of properties and if they do not do it pdq, they are constrained to grant planning permission to any developer who puts a planning application in until that number of properties is reached. If they refuse the developer goes to appeal, and will usual get consent on appeal. It costs the councils money to fight appeals they know they will lose so why go to the expense? It is easier and cheaper just to grant planning permission at the start.

Councils are not allowed to take into account the lack of physical infrastructure, drains ,sewage, roads, schools, health services or any of the other services now essential for modern living. They do not have the money to put them in and often the services, like roads and health services are provided by central government, not local government.

I absolutely accept that there is a dire housing shortage at the moment and I am not a NIMBY, I do accept that some of that housing is going to be in my back yard, but the way that developers can overrule councils and councils overrule the preferences of local people who are willing to, and have, identified suitable readily accessible land for building sometimes reduces me to tears of impotent rage.

Actually, another thought has come to mind, can anyone else see some sort of echo to Gullivers Travels?

I hate using technical/specialist phrases, as it can leave some members of the public feeling that they are being talked over in some way, but I feel that there is a slightly technical term that might apply to some of the aforementioned posts, and that is that it may be that the powers that be, who have the responsibility of ensuring that when it comes to planning the best needs of the community concerned have been served, have got it ARSE ABOUT FACE

But the wrong type of housing. I live in Oxfordshire, where housing is expensive. We also have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. So what do we get? company after company sticking up HUGE warehouses (we are just about to get a Tesco Dot Com warehouse among others).

The companies concerned send out press releases saying isn't it wonderful they are bringing all these (low paid warehouse) jobs to the area at this time of high unemployment. They fail to notice that are bringing in far more jobs than there are unemployed into an area which has a smaller proportion of the population looking for this type of job than almost any other in the country. And if anyone is thinking of moving to this area for this kind of work, they will be unable to afford to rent or buy in the private sector and there are not enough properties to house them in the public sector

Phoenix its because the Gov't is putting so much pressure on them to approve building, such is the dire need for houses.Particularly here in the Thames Valley [there are plenty of jobs here, just not enough housing.]

FlicketyB I totally understand your point, why on earth don't planners consider these things (schools and other essentials) when looking at applications?

Although we live in a large village, I think that 300 is too many, and there won't be that many affordable houses as far as I can see [ as someone said, the mimimum that the builders can get away with.]The junior school is at full capacity already.Just heard that the Goverment is thinking of building a whole new 'garden city' [around 25, 000 homes included] about 5 miles away from us on land that at the moment has some flooded bits.YIKES!!!!!

Our village did a lot of work, identified 6 sites suitable for housing had a ballot and produced a list of 1 - 6 of preferred sites.

What is the first thing the local Council did? Give planning consent for building on the site people least wanted built. It is behind the school, with access roads each side of the school into a narrow lane and small close of houses respecctively. The school is already full and the development means that the school now has nowhere to expand and any one with school age children buying on the site will have to drive them five miles or more to find a school that can take them.

There is affordable and affordable, isn't there? My beef really is that there should be loads of affordable houses not just the least the developers can get away with. And, all the infill sites round here have huge houses built on them when they could have probably 5x as many 'affordable' ones.

Over the past few years there have been a number of small ish developments in our village, and there is now another one planned on a site that was a small industrial unit.

I have banged on about this before, but we don't need more houses around here, we need more JOBS !

The affordable housing thing is a bit of a joke round here. This is how it works, houses are first offered to people resident in the parish, if there are any left (and there always are!) they then get offered to those living within the Local Authority catchment area, then the County Council area, then open to all.

Very unusual for developments to be approved without the inclusion of a certain number of affordable homes. Seems to be the modern - legal - form of a backhanderto the council. Good thing too.

A whole new town was going to be built on land very close to our village including a new secondary school, primary school, health centre etc.

Many locals protested that the land would flood and guess what, this year all the fields are under water.

Hopefully they'll now stick their silly plan somewhere else

Our Parish Coucil are currently involved in a High Court Appeal against the permission given for three hundred houses on the outskirts of our largish village. We are slightly worried about who will be meeting the bill! Since we moved here there have been a couple of smallish estates and two largish ones built, together with a fair number of infill sites having been developed.

I can understand the need for new houses but three things baffle me:

In a village with the name of a river in its title and one well known for being flooded if so little as a grey cloud passes overhead, why do they allow building on the flood plain

Why do the local council not _ insist_ on affordable housing

Why don't the council think outside the box and invest more in the existing infrastructure with a contribution from the builders.

We now have lots of good shops , cafes etc but no parking. The health centre and school are bursting at the seams and all the last estate brought in the way of benefits was a brilliant children' s playground - on the very outside edge of the village.

It does sound rather a lot. I think a lot depends on whether the planners make sure that local facilities are also improved.
Before the election the Tories said they were going to give local people a veto on all such development (which seemed a bit unrealistic to me). Was this rushed through ahead of the Localism bill? Not sure what the localism bill actually means in terms of changes to planning.