Campaigners against student village launch petition (From Daily Echo)

NIMBYs.....

How are they being taken for granted? They don't own the city, they don't get to dictate who can and can't live here. With halls at the end of St Marys, and all the student-friendly bars in Bevois Valley, it's not exactly a leafy suburban cul-de-sac as it is. I doubt they'll even notice a few students living across the road.

This is exactly the right place to be building two student blocks of flats.
If they can build a Jurys inn next door on a roundabout I can't see any problem with this going ahead!

Perhaps the university should start doing a degree in protesting as it seems the world and his wife want to protest about something, yes i agree that some students can be a problem but if you take any large group you are always going to find a few trouble makers. It should be pointed out to these nimby's how much the students are worth to the local economy not to mention the status of being a university city, would these same objectors have had the same opinion if it had been their dwellings that that were being objected too (NO) because that would have been different wouldn't it.

What is the definition of Community Leader?

How are they elected, or are these titles created and awarded by NuLabourite politicians and hacks of press, in what is supposed to be a democratic society to those who hate students but love their money coming into their coffers either through their shops or as rent for third rate dumps which either are owned by these people or their mates. Some of whom in fact have become millionaires by exploiting captive student market and SOME even from brothels for which this area used to be well known.

The site is across the road from Solent Uni, which makes it most suitable for student accommodation and there are Multi story buildings in the area, so is not out of character.

Hope councillors on the planning committe will have strong enough knees to make the decision purely on the merits of the application and not under pressure from hypocrite nimby brigade, which loves bluffing how many votes they control, which is not the case but only myth in colonial minded NuLabourites heads

Clearly there has been a mistake in the headline, it should read:

'Campaigners against students'

Surely this would help ease the strain on having students housed in other parts of the city, which can only be a good thing as we hear about the chaos they cause on this site often enough.

Agree with the above comments - to give students the NIMBY treatment when they're living near to one of the busiest roads in the city is a serious case of Mr Pot meeting Mr Kettle.

Paramjit Bahia asked:

What is the definition of Community Leader?

I have no idea. I ask myself this every time I see them referred to in a story. Who are these mysterious people? How do I find mine? How do I become one?

Georgem wrote:

Paramjit Bahia asked:

What is the definition of Community Leader?

I have no idea. I ask myself this every time I see them referred to in a story. Who are these mysterious people? How do I find mine? How do I become one?

You probably don't have the credentials that come only from skin colour.

These developments are both close to my home and I support both. Purpose-built student accommodation is a good thing. It will get students out of the nearby terraced housing, freeing it up for families who need it. More accommodation increases housing supply, and that in turn creates more competition between the suppliers (landlords). That helps to keep rents down.

A recent report by Shelter told us that our part of the South Coast has among the highest housing costs in the UK (excluding London) yet Southampton is amongst the poorest cities in the UK.

The NIMBYs behind this misbegotten protest group need to get real, and understand that they are being used by the large numbers of landlords who turned out to their recent public meeting. Those landlords interest is clearly in restricting housing supply to keep rents high.

And yet the NIMBYs actually believe that NuLabour councillors will help them. Dream on lads. If councillors had the funds they'd build the blocks themselves. They know, although the NIMBTs clearly don't know, that petitions, emotions, anger, etc, have no standing in planning law. The issue will be decided only on technical issues relating to planning law. If not, the developers can appeal to a government inspector and likely win their appeal and be awards millions in costs. Councillors found to have breached planning law can be surcharged and be held personally liable for costs and bankrupted.

Councillors know that. Apparently the NIMBYs don't.

Amateurs playing in the big boy's playground.

Landlords are against this so they can make money filling all the houses with students, when there are so many homeless crying out for accomadation.

Are all the local businesses against this too, if so why with so many bars takeaways in this area i thought this would be good to them.

And isnt it better to have the students together like this in purpose built blocks than spread all over the city.

Im all for this and i do live in this area.

Dont forget students always plead poverty yet they are out spending money near enough every night

george h wrote:
These developments are both close to my home and I support both. Purpose-built student accommodation is a good thing. It will get students out of the nearby terraced housing, freeing it up for families who need it. More accommodation increases housing supply, and that in turn creates more competition between the suppliers (landlords). That helps to keep rents down.

A recent report by Shelter told us that our part of the South Coast has among the highest housing costs in the UK (excluding London) yet Southampton is amongst the poorest cities in the UK.

The NIMBYs behind this misbegotten protest group need to get real, and understand that they are being used by the large numbers of landlords who turned out to their recent public meeting. Those landlords interest is clearly in restricting housing supply to keep rents high.

And yet the NIMBYs actually believe that NuLabour councillors will help them. Dream on lads. If councillors had the funds they'd build the blocks themselves. They know, although the NIMBTs clearly don't know, that petitions, emotions, anger, etc, have no standing in planning law. The issue will be decided only on technical issues relating to planning law. If not, the developers can appeal to a government inspector and likely win their appeal and be awards millions in costs. Councillors found to have breached planning law can be surcharged and be held personally liable for costs and bankrupted.

Councillors know that. Apparently the NIMBYs don't.

Amateurs playing in the big boy's playground.

Hi George H, as you live in the area you may know this David Roath. Is by any chance this is same Mr. Roath who was member of Labour Party and used hang to the coat tails of colonial minded John Arnold etc? The guy who used to be involved in a Gurdwara and sued British Airways accusing it of discrimination because of him being Sikh but in reality had his hair cut and also smokes, which is prohibited in that religion?
If it is the same guy then hypocrisy and hyped up 'Community Leadership' is not surprising.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

george h wrote:
These developments are both close to my home and I support both. Purpose-built student accommodation is a good thing. It will get students out of the nearby terraced housing, freeing it up for families who need it. More accommodation increases housing supply, and that in turn creates more competition between the suppliers (landlords). That helps to keep rents down.

A recent report by Shelter told us that our part of the South Coast has among the highest housing costs in the UK (excluding London) yet Southampton is amongst the poorest cities in the UK.

The NIMBYs behind this misbegotten protest group need to get real, and understand that they are being used by the large numbers of landlords who turned out to their recent public meeting. Those landlords interest is clearly in restricting housing supply to keep rents high.

And yet the NIMBYs actually believe that NuLabour councillors will help them. Dream on lads. If councillors had the funds they'd build the blocks themselves. They know, although the NIMBTs clearly don't know, that petitions, emotions, anger, etc, have no standing in planning law. The issue will be decided only on technical issues relating to planning law. If not, the developers can appeal to a government inspector and likely win their appeal and be awards millions in costs. Councillors found to have breached planning law can be surcharged and be held personally liable for costs and bankrupted.

Councillors know that. Apparently the NIMBYs don't.

Amateurs playing in the big boy's playground.

Hi George H, as you live in the area you may know this David Roath. Is by any chance this is same Mr. Roath who was member of Labour Party and used hang to the coat tails of colonial minded John Arnold etc? The guy who used to be involved in a Gurdwara and sued British Airways accusing it of discrimination because of him being Sikh but in reality had his hair cut and also smokes, which is prohibited in that religion?
If it is the same guy then hypocrisy and hyped up 'Community Leadership' is not surprising.

I believe he was one of a team of lawyers at local lawyerly outfit Paris Smith who sued British Airways and lost. An issue about BA's dress code. Made national news, then went to the European Court. Lost there too. Can't say more. Have no desire to be sued myself.

See Par Smith website at: http://www.parissmit
h.co.uk/wp-content/u
ploads/1337/18/emplo
yment-update-28-11-0
8.pdf

george h wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

george h wrote:
These developments are both close to my home and I support both. Purpose-built student accommodation is a good thing. It will get students out of the nearby terraced housing, freeing it up for families who need it. More accommodation increases housing supply, and that in turn creates more competition between the suppliers (landlords). That helps to keep rents down.

A recent report by Shelter told us that our part of the South Coast has among the highest housing costs in the UK (excluding London) yet Southampton is amongst the poorest cities in the UK.

The NIMBYs behind this misbegotten protest group need to get real, and understand that they are being used by the large numbers of landlords who turned out to their recent public meeting. Those landlords interest is clearly in restricting housing supply to keep rents high.

And yet the NIMBYs actually believe that NuLabour councillors will help them. Dream on lads. If councillors had the funds they'd build the blocks themselves. They know, although the NIMBTs clearly don't know, that petitions, emotions, anger, etc, have no standing in planning law. The issue will be decided only on technical issues relating to planning law. If not, the developers can appeal to a government inspector and likely win their appeal and be awards millions in costs. Councillors found to have breached planning law can be surcharged and be held personally liable for costs and bankrupted.

Councillors know that. Apparently the NIMBYs don't.

Amateurs playing in the big boy's playground.

Hi George H, as you live in the area you may know this David Roath. Is by any chance this is same Mr. Roath who was member of Labour Party and used hang to the coat tails of colonial minded John Arnold etc? The guy who used to be involved in a Gurdwara and sued British Airways accusing it of discrimination because of him being Sikh but in reality had his hair cut and also smokes, which is prohibited in that religion?
If it is the same guy then hypocrisy and hyped up 'Community Leadership' is not surprising.

I believe he was one of a team of lawyers at local lawyerly outfit Paris Smith who sued British Airways and lost. An issue about BA's dress code. Made national news, then went to the European Court. Lost there too. Can't say more. Have no desire to be sued myself.

See Par Smith website at: http://www.parissmit

h.co.uk/wp-content/u

ploads/1337/18/emplo

yment-update-28-11-0

8.pdf

One point worth noting Parmi, is that if this guy David Roache was, as you said, a NuLabour activist from John Arnold's era, and a lawyer, then he'll be well versed in the minutia of planning law. It's an old trick he pays Parmi. Political activists masquerading as local concerned voters. Seen it al before.

Furthermore, as last I heard, lawyers start off as students. So in whose neighbourhood did he live alongside in his student days and later doing solicitor practice training?

I think we deserve to be told David Roache.


Typical of NuLabour tho'. Denham, Whitehead and their like got a free university education paid for by the workers they despise while affecting to represent. Then in power, they pulled up the drawbridge (some retreated behind a moat and a duckhouse paid for by us) - leaving today's students having to go heavily into debt to get their education.

And remember - these students are our future in our old age, - these are the sons and daughters of today's NIMBYs

Ignore NIMBYs and build.

george h wrote:

george h wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

george h wrote: These developments are both close to my home and I support both. Purpose-built student accommodation is a good thing. It will get students out of the nearby terraced housing, freeing it up for families who need it. More accommodation increases housing supply, and that in turn creates more competition between the suppliers (landlords). That helps to keep rents down. A recent report by Shelter told us that our part of the South Coast has among the highest housing costs in the UK (excluding London) yet Southampton is amongst the poorest cities in the UK. The NIMBYs behind this misbegotten protest group need to get real, and understand that they are being used by the large numbers of landlords who turned out to their recent public meeting. Those landlords interest is clearly in restricting housing supply to keep rents high. And yet the NIMBYs actually believe that NuLabour councillors will help them. Dream on lads. If councillors had the funds they'd build the blocks themselves. They know, although the NIMBTs clearly don't know, that petitions, emotions, anger, etc, have no standing in planning law. The issue will be decided only on technical issues relating to planning law. If not, the developers can appeal to a government inspector and likely win their appeal and be awards millions in costs. Councillors found to have breached planning law can be surcharged and be held personally liable for costs and bankrupted. Councillors know that. Apparently the NIMBYs don't. Amateurs playing in the big boy's playground.

Hi George H, as you live in the area you may know this David Roath. Is by any chance this is same Mr. Roath who was member of Labour Party and used hang to the coat tails of colonial minded John Arnold etc? The guy who used to be involved in a Gurdwara and sued British Airways accusing it of discrimination because of him being Sikh but in reality had his hair cut and also smokes, which is prohibited in that religion? If it is the same guy then hypocrisy and hyped up 'Community Leadership' is not surprising.

I believe he was one of a team of lawyers at local lawyerly outfit Paris Smith who sued British Airways and lost. An issue about BA's dress code. Made national news, then went to the European Court. Lost there too. Can't say more. Have no desire to be sued myself. See Par Smith website at: http://www.parissmit h.co.uk/wp-content/u ploads/1337/18/emplo yment-update-28-11-0 8.pdf

One point worth noting Parmi, is that if this guy David Roache was, as you said, a NuLabour activist from John Arnold's era, and a lawyer, then he'll be well versed in the minutia of planning law. It's an old trick he pays Parmi. Political activists masquerading as local concerned voters. Seen it al before. Furthermore, as last I heard, lawyers start off as students. So in whose neighbourhood did he live alongside in his student days and later doing solicitor practice training? I think we deserve to be told David Roache. Typical of NuLabour tho'. Denham, Whitehead and their like got a free university education paid for by the workers they despise while affecting to represent. Then in power, they pulled up the drawbridge (some retreated behind a moat and a duckhouse paid for by us) - leaving today's students having to go heavily into debt to get their education. And remember - these students are our future in our old age, - these are the sons and daughters of today's NIMBYs

Guy I asked about was David 'Roath' not Roach. As far as I am aware D Roath was not a lawyer.

You are spot on about our NuLabour MPs having had not only free education but also probably received student grants that used to be available and then putting boot into opportunities for others.

Yes students of today are going to be future of our nation