In article , Tony Bryer
writes
In article , wrote:
But aren't local people/councils the best to judge what is right
or wrong for an area as long as the reasons cited are sound
planning reasons and not NIMBYism,

The second tends to be dressed up as the first. And 'local people'
tend to be a vociferous minority who are far from representative
when they claim that 'no one wants ....'. Personally I (unlike most
Conservatives when considering this subject) tend to free market
views: the fact that a developer wants to knock down two houses and
build 8 flats probably indicates that there are a lot of people who
do want said flats. Most of the stuff that the conservationists now
try to preserve was built in an era when developers could build what
they wanted and delivered what would make them a profit. And because
there wasn't a planning system induced artificial shortage quality
was better.

I disagree with the first sentence though Tony, having attended a fair
number of planning committee meetings I think you can spot the NIMBY's a
mile off. I'm all for development and wish more land could be released
for building rather than increasing the density of housing on the
available land. I could sit down this evening and draw up a sensible
development plan for my village which would suit the majority and give a
decent 'shape' to the village, I don't like all the infill development
as open spaces can be as important to the character of an area as the
buildings. I wouldn't trust a developer as far as I could throw them,
they always build what's best for them and then convince the buying
populace that that's best for them also
--
David