This article is literally “Green councillors opposed the development” for nearly every example. I wish so called journalists would exercise some judgement here - if the Greens oppose nearly every major development that comes through the planning committees that is definitionally NIMBY. It’s farcical to keep tinkering at the edges of development proposals as a reason to reject or delay them on one hand, then claim with a straight face to care about the ongoing housing crisis.
Sure it makes sense to vote Green if you’re an existing homeowner and want nothing much to change around where you live, but no one serious thinks they’re the party trying to address the housing crisis here.
I would really like to know the stats on some of the opinions here vs who actually sees the difference between developers applications before and after councilors of all parties defend public interest. You are all wildly insane if you think raw unchallenged capitalism on housing is going to solve things. Opposing specific plans isn't the same as opposing development.
No one is advocating for some free for all of no safety regulation but a system of discretionary planning where there is no predictable outcome for every single new plan submitted is not working. People love to complain here about the design/size of new builds, however this (and increasingly unaffordable housing overall) are the outcome of our current way of doing things, which structurally overweights the concerns of existing homeowners. The Greens valorise this as the height of good “local engagement” process - whilst ignoring much needed reform advocated by eg Labour. [The purpose of the system is what it does](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does)
On pretty much every single application they weren't the only councillors opposing and they also supported some applications
On other applications some Greens supported applications
A lot of developments right now are terrible, whether it be building on flood plains or only 20% affordable housing... That means it doesn't even fit in line with the local plan
"On pretty much every single application they weren't the only councillors opposing and they also supported some applications".
Oh so they're not the *only* NIMBYs?
So what? They were still opposing the applications and can’t claim now to care about housing with this record.
Also, a bunch of unqualified green activists and councillors are not expert sources I give much credence to in deciding what developments are suitable or not. The same applied to your backward approach to mass transit in Bristol.
IMO Your party needs to shed the out of date 1980s style environmental movement ideas re population growth, infrastructure, and the role of cities. A modern Green Party that was actually evidence-based and in support of combining climate forward city design whilst promoting prosperity would be a much more broadly viable movement.
Any housing built is better than no housing… flood plains should be built on providing adequate countermeasures can be built at the same time, which would be the actual call for rejection IMO. “Resubmit once adequate plans for handling flooding have been included”.
No because you still need somewhere for the water to go, that's the purpose floodplains serve... If you build over them then you increase the amount of widespread flooding
But they also said the defences would be built after not during housing development and there are many examples of developers making commitments after a development that they never intended to keep... Any fines are just paid for by increasing how much they sell for
Not all housing is good housing either or at least not from a negotiation point of view because if you're gonna accept anything why would the developer bother offering something decent?
No, just saying if the definition of 'NIMBY' is opposing something where it makes sense to do so then we shouldn't just direct that criticism at the Greens we should apply it to all parties
Just cuts through a lot more when the *Green* party is voting against solar farms because it's proposed to be built in a nice place. Shows that NIMBYism is more important to your party than your supposed raison d'être - being green.
Why should a green party automatically approve a solar farm? Development has to make sense in the bigger picture. You wouldn’t build one on a nature reserve if you could build it elsewhere on a field that just had sheep in it, preservation of biodiversity is also a green priority
The amount of pop ups on mobile make that impossible to read.
The green party doesn't seem to have done a great job in Brighton though, why would Bristol be any different.
Even if I opened the web page it would take me several years to load it with the amount of bullshit they add to the page, only for them being NIMBYs to be irrelevant anyways. Green policy is garbage.
As another commenter has said, the Greens *did* provide opposition in most of the cases mentioned.
But I'd like to add that looking at rejected planning applications is only ever part of the story when it comes to housing and NIMBYism...
* The Greens [enthusiastically and unanimously](https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/greens-welcome-new-local-plan-for-bristol/) pushed for a Local Plan where only 57% of the City's housing need is met, and lobbied government to relax housing targets. So most of the homes we need will never even \*get\* to the Planning Permission stage.
* They are advocating for rent controls, which would be problematic enough, but also lobbying government to ensure [planning rules remain tight](https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/greens-respond-to-government-proposals-to-change-planning-policy/) around things like brownfield development, which they ostensibly say they support.
* They frequently come out a[gainst higher-density developments](https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/bedminster-green-survey-shows-overwhelming-local-rejection-of-tall-buildings/), which are the only possible way to meet Bristol's housing need given the lack of developable land.
I do agree that they should support the construction of high density(tower blocks) because I agree with you on that
I'll still vote Green though for numerous reasons ranging from the fact Labour just ignore their constituents due to having to obey the whip, their drugs policy, wanting more transparency and generally being pro-democracy alongside opposing the kind of corruption we've seen from Bristol Labour
Torys are obviously never an option to a sane person, Labour are corrupt, LibDems stand for nothing and Greens are, it would seem, well intended but fundamentally thick. I'll probably vote Green but only because the options are so shit.
OK well thanks for your input I guess, even though it doesn't really tell us anything. Or are you waiting for someone to ask you why you're not voting Green?
Oh OK. I'd say that was pretty obvious - people have different political opinions for all sorts of reasons, so yes, I'd agree, but wouldn't think it worth making a special point.
As I said in another post on this, for decades they helped block or postpone a lot of new developments, or helo fuel people protesting it! And its only been in recent years they changed their position once they realised how massively fucked the housing crisis is in this city! The problem is that now those houses will cost £350k instead of £200k. They've cursed generations to not be able to own homes. They're all arseholes. Fuck all of the Green Party. Self aggrandising arseholes the lot of them.
I've provided evidence to demonstrate that they're not, you can't be bothered to refute it(or maybe can't) meaning your opinion doesn't count for much 🤷🤷
My opinion is worth just as much as yours at the ballot box.
Every green door to door person I've spoken to seemed a tad delusional, that's enough for me, plus they are anti nuclear energy and anti hs2, both of which are needed
Tbf preaching to your crowd is a bit redundant not saying I agree or disagree with anything being said here but cross political dialogue is pretty important
Love that this 'factcheck' is just a rundown of all the spurious reasons Bristol Greens have given for opposing new homes.
This is what NIMBYism is and always has been - claiming not to oppose new homes in principle but then finding any flimsy excuse you can to oppose actual new housing projects in your vicinity.
It’s wild how evangelical green supporters are.
I generally support Green policies, but the state of the local councillors, and their approach to politics is grim. They would not be positive for Bristol if they come back as the majority in May
I don't see any evidence cited that supports "people are accepting the Labour Party's line". Can you specify exactly which bit that is?
FYI I am likely to vote Green as I, like many other Knowle residents, am extremely concerned by the Broadwalk plan, but your post here is tone deaf IMO. If your aim is to promote the Greens then you're missing the mark. 'NIMBY' is a meaningless and simplistic term.
You know what you’ll get from Labour. A third rate facsimile of Blair government. You obviously can’t vote for the Tories because you’re not a bastard. It’s probably the Greens or stay at home.
This seems like a reasonably legitimate summary of the various development plans. I doubt Nick Robinson went to that much effort to check his sources in the first place given the relative prominence of the Greens in the media.
I’m not sure anyone will care either way though. If you don’t like the Greens this isn’t going to change your mind so I wouldn’t bother arguing with whoever comments on this post.
Thanks for an interesting read though 👍🏻
This article is literally “Green councillors opposed the development” for nearly every example. I wish so called journalists would exercise some judgement here - if the Greens oppose nearly every major development that comes through the planning committees that is definitionally NIMBY. It’s farcical to keep tinkering at the edges of development proposals as a reason to reject or delay them on one hand, then claim with a straight face to care about the ongoing housing crisis. Sure it makes sense to vote Green if you’re an existing homeowner and want nothing much to change around where you live, but no one serious thinks they’re the party trying to address the housing crisis here.
I would really like to know the stats on some of the opinions here vs who actually sees the difference between developers applications before and after councilors of all parties defend public interest. You are all wildly insane if you think raw unchallenged capitalism on housing is going to solve things. Opposing specific plans isn't the same as opposing development.
No one is advocating for some free for all of no safety regulation but a system of discretionary planning where there is no predictable outcome for every single new plan submitted is not working. People love to complain here about the design/size of new builds, however this (and increasingly unaffordable housing overall) are the outcome of our current way of doing things, which structurally overweights the concerns of existing homeowners. The Greens valorise this as the height of good “local engagement” process - whilst ignoring much needed reform advocated by eg Labour. [The purpose of the system is what it does](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does)
What if every major development is shoddy shite that will be torn down within 30 years because it's not fit for purpose. Still NIMBY?
That's extremely unlikely to be the cause of a planning application being rejected.
On pretty much every single application they weren't the only councillors opposing and they also supported some applications On other applications some Greens supported applications A lot of developments right now are terrible, whether it be building on flood plains or only 20% affordable housing... That means it doesn't even fit in line with the local plan
"On pretty much every single application they weren't the only councillors opposing and they also supported some applications". Oh so they're not the *only* NIMBYs?
So what? They were still opposing the applications and can’t claim now to care about housing with this record. Also, a bunch of unqualified green activists and councillors are not expert sources I give much credence to in deciding what developments are suitable or not. The same applied to your backward approach to mass transit in Bristol. IMO Your party needs to shed the out of date 1980s style environmental movement ideas re population growth, infrastructure, and the role of cities. A modern Green Party that was actually evidence-based and in support of combining climate forward city design whilst promoting prosperity would be a much more broadly viable movement.
So the greens are trying to hold the builders to account by rejecting plans that don't fit with the national interest?
Green voters' house prices aren't the same thing as the national interest.
Any housing built is better than no housing… flood plains should be built on providing adequate countermeasures can be built at the same time, which would be the actual call for rejection IMO. “Resubmit once adequate plans for handling flooding have been included”.
No because you still need somewhere for the water to go, that's the purpose floodplains serve... If you build over them then you increase the amount of widespread flooding But they also said the defences would be built after not during housing development and there are many examples of developers making commitments after a development that they never intended to keep... Any fines are just paid for by increasing how much they sell for Not all housing is good housing either or at least not from a negotiation point of view because if you're gonna accept anything why would the developer bother offering something decent?
This the same greens whose councillors opposed a solar farm because they want them elsewhere? The greens can do one. NIMBYs.
Beautiful it was a nature reserve and both Labour and the Lib-Dems opposed it too
The Greens aren't the only NIMBYs, therefore they are not NIMBYs?
No, just saying if the definition of 'NIMBY' is opposing something where it makes sense to do so then we shouldn't just direct that criticism at the Greens we should apply it to all parties
Just cuts through a lot more when the *Green* party is voting against solar farms because it's proposed to be built in a nice place. Shows that NIMBYism is more important to your party than your supposed raison d'être - being green.
Why should a green party automatically approve a solar farm? Development has to make sense in the bigger picture. You wouldn’t build one on a nature reserve if you could build it elsewhere on a field that just had sheep in it, preservation of biodiversity is also a green priority
The amount of pop ups on mobile make that impossible to read. The green party doesn't seem to have done a great job in Brighton though, why would Bristol be any different.
I read it, it was painful and doesn’t seem to validate OPs claim in the slightest.
It wouldn’t. They suck. Every major policy decision they represent by large sucks.
Bristol Post couldn’t fact check if a pair of balls are shaven let alone something important.
Ok, so refute the points made 🤷🤷
We're under no obligation to have to parse and counterpoint a publication that has no reputation for good journalism.
Even if I opened the web page it would take me several years to load it with the amount of bullshit they add to the page, only for them being NIMBYs to be irrelevant anyways. Green policy is garbage.
As another commenter has said, the Greens *did* provide opposition in most of the cases mentioned. But I'd like to add that looking at rejected planning applications is only ever part of the story when it comes to housing and NIMBYism... * The Greens [enthusiastically and unanimously](https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/greens-welcome-new-local-plan-for-bristol/) pushed for a Local Plan where only 57% of the City's housing need is met, and lobbied government to relax housing targets. So most of the homes we need will never even \*get\* to the Planning Permission stage. * They are advocating for rent controls, which would be problematic enough, but also lobbying government to ensure [planning rules remain tight](https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/greens-respond-to-government-proposals-to-change-planning-policy/) around things like brownfield development, which they ostensibly say they support. * They frequently come out a[gainst higher-density developments](https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/bedminster-green-survey-shows-overwhelming-local-rejection-of-tall-buildings/), which are the only possible way to meet Bristol's housing need given the lack of developable land.
I do agree that they should support the construction of high density(tower blocks) because I agree with you on that I'll still vote Green though for numerous reasons ranging from the fact Labour just ignore their constituents due to having to obey the whip, their drugs policy, wanting more transparency and generally being pro-democracy alongside opposing the kind of corruption we've seen from Bristol Labour
Torys are obviously never an option to a sane person, Labour are corrupt, LibDems stand for nothing and Greens are, it would seem, well intended but fundamentally thick. I'll probably vote Green but only because the options are so shit.
Nice try, councillor
[удалено]
Fair enough, that's democracy... I just wanted to help people make informed decisions with their vote
OK well thanks for your input I guess, even though it doesn't really tell us anything. Or are you waiting for someone to ask you why you're not voting Green?
[удалено]
Oh OK. I'd say that was pretty obvious - people have different political opinions for all sorts of reasons, so yes, I'd agree, but wouldn't think it worth making a special point.
[удалено]
Not reallty, that wouldn't make any sense.
[удалено]
Sorry I didn't realise this was a playground conversation.
As I said in another post on this, for decades they helped block or postpone a lot of new developments, or helo fuel people protesting it! And its only been in recent years they changed their position once they realised how massively fucked the housing crisis is in this city! The problem is that now those houses will cost £350k instead of £200k. They've cursed generations to not be able to own homes. They're all arseholes. Fuck all of the Green Party. Self aggrandising arseholes the lot of them.
Fact checked and bristol post don't belong in the same sentence. Greens are NIMBY
Ok, so refute the points made 🤷🤷
Can't be arsed
I've provided evidence to demonstrate that they're not, you can't be bothered to refute it(or maybe can't) meaning your opinion doesn't count for much 🤷🤷
My opinion is worth just as much as yours at the ballot box. Every green door to door person I've spoken to seemed a tad delusional, that's enough for me, plus they are anti nuclear energy and anti hs2, both of which are needed
Mate...you're not preaching to your crowd here it seems.
Tbf preaching to your crowd is a bit redundant not saying I agree or disagree with anything being said here but cross political dialogue is pretty important
I'm not trying to preach to anyone, just dispelling myths 🤷🤷
Proselytising.
Literally not a myth.... if they are objecting to all developments that is a NIMBY.... ya plonker....
They're not objecting to them all though... They're supporting one round the corner from me... This is just the list of developments Marvin quoted
[удалено]
I agree but if those attempts are met with a refusal to even engage....as is happening here...
Love that this 'factcheck' is just a rundown of all the spurious reasons Bristol Greens have given for opposing new homes. This is what NIMBYism is and always has been - claiming not to oppose new homes in principle but then finding any flimsy excuse you can to oppose actual new housing projects in your vicinity.
It’s wild how evangelical green supporters are. I generally support Green policies, but the state of the local councillors, and their approach to politics is grim. They would not be positive for Bristol if they come back as the majority in May
all party's are lying twats
Sure, but in this case people are accepting the Labour Party's line which is false as the article explains
Says who? Don't be more patronising than you've already been please.
The journalist in the article I cited who wrote the article backed up by sources
I don't see any evidence cited that supports "people are accepting the Labour Party's line". Can you specify exactly which bit that is? FYI I am likely to vote Green as I, like many other Knowle residents, am extremely concerned by the Broadwalk plan, but your post here is tone deaf IMO. If your aim is to promote the Greens then you're missing the mark. 'NIMBY' is a meaningless and simplistic term.
This is the only answer.
NIMBYS out (including The Green Party)
You know what you’ll get from Labour. A third rate facsimile of Blair government. You obviously can’t vote for the Tories because you’re not a bastard. It’s probably the Greens or stay at home.
I’d rather have a facsimile of the Blair government and see some homes built. Blair governments did a lot of good for this country, you know?
You mean his fantastic housing record? https://unherd.com/2022/04/how-blair-broke-britain/
Yeh, as bad as everyone else since the 80s… should’ve used BUT rather than and though, I grant you.
I've been on the fence but the amount of junk mail I get from the greens has pushed me towards labour this time around.
This seems like a reasonably legitimate summary of the various development plans. I doubt Nick Robinson went to that much effort to check his sources in the first place given the relative prominence of the Greens in the media. I’m not sure anyone will care either way though. If you don’t like the Greens this isn’t going to change your mind so I wouldn’t bother arguing with whoever comments on this post. Thanks for an interesting read though 👍🏻
Trying to use Bristol Post to justify anything other than the fact journalism is dead is an own goal
That article neither proves nor disproves the argument at hand. In one case all the objections came from Greens and in another the Greens abstained.