The Nimbys Aren't The Problem Anymore

[Aizoon]

You're wrong there.

I moved to a village, next door to a pub, about 15 years ago, and I would campaign against large scale development - I guess that makes me a NIMBY.

The pub closed earlier this year (purchased by an individual intending to live there) and I am trying to have it re-opened.

Your definition of "progress" is somebody else's nightmare, and you can't blame them for opposing it - as Cotswold Red says, it's understandable human nature.

If you got that pub closed, your house would be worth more

[Aizoon]

More seriously, Bristol is NOT a village. It's the sixth city in the country and we expect some development. The Gas moved in across the road from me and I gritted my teeth and got on with it.

[NickJ]

If you got that pub closed, your house would be worth more

I like pubs.

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

Is there not some legal way of 'softening' the blow somehow and offering to pay off their mortgages or something?

Out of principle it stinks, however, how many of us could say we'd definitely turn down a goodwill gesture of a disturbance payment?

So long as its all legal, of course. Payment on completion of stadium.

Many developments have just this - either direct payments, as part of section 106 agreements (money to the council for improving local services) or community funds.

[CotswoldRed]

Many developments have just this - either direct payments, as part of section 106 agreements (money to the council for improving local services) or community funds.

Does this permit recompense to individuals?

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

Does this permit recompense to individuals?

Sometimes they do. I believe one of the big costs for HS2 is the cost of compensating property owners for the impact of the project on their property value.

[CotswoldRed]

Sometimes they do. I believe one of the big costs for HS2 is the cost of compensating property owners for the impact of the project on their property value.

Of course it would have to be confidential as all and sundry would want to piggyback on it.

Just needs a quiet "the TVG Campaigners wish to withdraw their campaign due to suitable assurances etc, no further comment"

Money is money after all.

[bizi]

Thing is though trash hide themselves away, so rovers fans who spend money on glos rd on a weekend could be funding trash unawares, for your probs, donate one half to the locals with cleanliness and a non transfer or sale covenants , then let the gypos move in, im sure their attitude would change if they had to fork out for upkeep of the land etc.

the biggest problem for rovers and others around the country is that now it appears that sl has backed down against the local halfwits (thats the way it appears from the news reports), Then all these tree hugging ,green ,loony halfwits will suddenly believe that every time they challenge something they will win, encouraging more jr's to be attempted around the county( im not blaming sl in anyway shape or form)

[NOTR]

The so-called nimbys are campaigning against a multi million pound investment, shops, and a wetland area - so clearly they do not see that as "progress".

And the total number of so called nimbys is?

[NickJ]

And the total number of so called nimbys is?

You are on a fatally flawed road if you are suggesting the outcome should depend on the number of supporters for each possible course of action.

Notwithstanding that, I haven't got a clue how many so called nimbys there are and that wasn't even my point. I was correcting the presumption that building something is incontrovertibly desirable in the name of "progress".

[Esmond Million's Bung]

You are on a fatally flawed road if you are suggesting the outcome should depend on the number of supporters for each possible course of action.

Notwithstanding that, I haven't got a clue how many so called nimbys there are and that wasn't even my point. I was correcting the presumption that building something is incontrovertibly desirable in the name of "progress".

Well here's hoping that biggest travelers site in europe get's built there, instant karma, after all it's a village green and traditionally village greens are where the good old travelers used to pitch up in the good old days, before it was even a tip and few lazy locals trespassed onto the land and allowed their dogs to shit all over the place and then abuse the law of of the land.

[NOTR]

You are on a fatally flawed road if you are suggesting the outcome should depend on the number of supporters for each possible course of action.

Notwithstanding that, I haven't got a clue how many so called nimbys there are and that wasn't even my point. I was correcting the presumption that building something is incontrovertibly desirable in the name of "progress".

Of course you're right every case should be judged on it's merits,but this city has been held back for too long by a vocal MINORITY in a country that is a Democracy,where the MAJORITY rule.

[sunningdalered]

No, they want to live in the area they moved to, as it is. Nothing unreasonable about that.

Do the (amended) plans for AV stadium require any alteration to the boundaries of any residents properties? Are there any CPO's required? Seems to me that the nearby residents who will be affected - who should, incidentally, be the only people with any right to voice an objection since this is not a publicly-funded project - are only, actually, losing their unofficial playground, which they never bought, or have any formal entitlement to enjoy the use of.

It's not unreasonable for local residents to voice an objection on the off-chance - but for them to have their claims taken seriously is beyond farcical.

[CotswoldRed]

Of course you're right every case should be judged on it's merits,but this city has been held back for too long by a vocal MINORITY in a country that is a Democracy,where the MAJORITY rule.

Not everything should be decided on majority. You need rules to protect individuals.

[Aizoon]

Not everything should be decided on majority. You need rules to protect individuals.

And rules to protect people's collective rights. We had a good balance until Tory B Liar put his oar in

[Slack Bladder]

No, they want to live in the area they moved to, as it is. Nothing unreasonable about that.

Why do people move to the Chew Valley knowing full well it's in the flight path of Bristol Airport and then complain that aeroplanes fly above their houses.

People who bought houses near Ashton Gate knowing there is already a football stadium will probably complain about an expansion, just like people who bought a house next to the airport complained about that expansion.

[NickJ]

Why do people move to the Chew Valley knowing full well it's in the flight path of Bristol Airport and then complain that aeroplanes fly above their houses.

People who bought houses near Ashton Gate knowing there is already a football stadium will probably complain about an expansion, just like people who bought a house next to the airport complained about that expansion.

I've lived in the Chew Valley for 15 years and have never once heard any "newbie" such as myself complain about aeroplane noise, in fact a relatively small part of the Chew Valley is in the direct flight path, so I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, I doubt you do either.

Now on the other hand, if Bristol Airport proposed to build a major new runway creating dozens of noisy flights in a new flight path flying directly over peoples houses, then I would think those people would have a right to object.

The same principle applies to Ashton Vale, or indeed any proposed expansion to Ashton Gate if it is likely to adversely affect the lives of people in the vicinity.

Planning legislation exists for a reason and the constant bleating by so many people who take exception to the democratic right of individuals to object to something that they disagree with genuinely shocks me.

[Manon]

Oh come on nick, course people have every right to defend their quality of life using appropriate legislation... But this lot are flagrantly taking the mickey using every trick in the book, and there comes a point where a sense of what's right anna wrong should kick in.

[Super]

Oh come on nick, course people have every right to defend their quality of life using appropriate legislation... But this lot are flagrantly taking the mickey using every trick in the book, and there comes a point where a sense of what's right anna wrong should kick in.

You do realise he is not on our side?

[Manon]

Who's side? What?

[Aizoon]

You do realise he is not on our side?

He's a NIMBY WUM, IMHO.

[REDOXO]

No, they want to live in the area they moved to, as it is. Nothing unreasonable about that.

Yes in this case a former landfill dog turd infested canine cesspit....oopps a town green.

Yep they got progress on the backs of real progress. They never campaigned for the area to be turned into something nice for the residents until someone wanted to build something lasting...

Free loading ***** who were perfectly happy with their canine cesspit until Bristol City FC wanted to do something that would provide jobs improve the infrastructure of the area and attract business to England's greenest City and they were getting a wetland thrown in!

Let them keep their cesspit and hopefully planning permission can be obtained for an abatoir on the site!

At least that is what I would do if I were SL

[Bat Fastard]

Yes in this case a former landfill dog turd infested canine cesspit....oopps a town green.

Yep they got progress on the backs of real progress. They never campaigned for the area to be turned into something nice for the residents until someone wanted to build something lasting...

Free loading ***** who were perfectly happy with their canine cesspit until Bristol City FC wanted to do something that would provide jobs improve the infrastructure of the area and attract business to England's greenest City and they were getting a wetland thrown in!

Let them keep their cesspit and hopefully planning permission can be obtained for an abatoir on the site!

At least that is what I would do if I were SL

It would make a wonderful commercial pig farm!

[CotswoldRed]

And rules to protect people's collective rights. We had a good balance until Tory B Liar put his oar in

Indeed. A balance of both. But arguing that the majority should have their way is just a starter for 10.

You'd never have shops spending money on disabled access, for example, if the majority simply had their way without the minority being looked after.

[Gazred]

Democracy= rule of the majority. Unless of course someone chucks in a dodgy TVG application, then it goes right out of the window.

[Aizoon]

Indeed. A balance of both. But arguing that the majority should have their way is just a starter for 10.

You'd never have shops spending money on disabled access, for example, if the majority simply had their way without the minority being looked after.

Absolutely. It's important to have respect for everyone, majorities as well as minorities. The problem is that these Greens believe that they're saving the planet and, like all fanatics, have no respect for anyone but themselves.

[B-Rizzle]

Some interesting and well reasoned debate going on here (for once!). I've 'liked' a number of counter arguments.

I agree that certain legislation is there to protect the minority and that a lot of the residents do have a right to object to both AV and AG redevelopment.

(I must say that I think many of the arguments about moving house close to a stadium or airport and then complaining are void. Their objections are to do with an expansion of the current site and the effect that will have on them. Obviously the stadium was there before them, but not in the proposed capacity.)

On the other hand, I do also think that common sense has to rule. When you do development of any scale, let alone this scale, you will NEVER please everyone. For me the ridiculous thing is that somehow a handful of residents and nimbys have managed to prevent a massively positive development on the grounds that they don't want a stadium in their garden. I don't blame them, I wouldn't want it either, but the fact they've managed to exploit ridiculous loop holes (TVG) and stop AV is unbelievable. This shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[Slack Bladder]

I bought a house in an area of detatched houses with large gardens.

A neighbour of mine sold his house to a developer who has knocked down the original house and is in the process of building 6 smaller houses on the land.

I objected but couldn't do anything to stop it, spoiling my view, having my garden overlooked was not grounds to stop the planning permission.

I have now planted a row of trees to block out the building site.

Sometimes you have to accept change and adapt.

I am worried about where they are going park the cars though, as each house only has one bay.

[NickJ]

So basically you saw something changing in your neighbourhood which you didn't like, and you objected?

But then having lost your battle, you have made the best of the alternatives?

Which trees did you plant?

PS there is a presumption of just one vehicle max per unit - but mandatory cycle storage areas. Parking wont be a problem.

[Slack Bladder]

So basically you saw something changing in your neighbourhood which you didn't like, and you objected?

But then having lost your battle, you have made the best of the alternatives?

Which trees did you plant?

PS there is a presumption of just one vehicle max per unit - but mandatory cycle storage areas. Parking wont be a problem.

Maybe I am just a little bitter and twisted.