March 26th, 2011 |
New Government Planning Statement
Prue Bray, who is a Lib Dem Councillor in Berkshire, has pointed out a rather worrying statement on March 23rd by Conservative MP Greg Clark, the Coalition minister for Decentralisation. You can find it here.
It’s about ‘planning for growth’, which sounds good in terms of improving the economy, but there are some alarming bits for people concerned about over-development:
…..there is a pressing need to ensure that the planning system does everything it can to help secure a swift return to economic growth. This statement therefore sets out the steps the Government expects local planning authorities to take with immediate effect.
So new policies come into effect immediately.
Authorities should work together to ensure that needs and opportunities that extend beyond (or cannot be met within) their own boundaries are identified and accommodated in a sustainable way, such as housing market requirements that cover a number of areas, and the strategic infrastructure necessary to support growth.
So a council like Rochford may have to accept extra development to cover the needs of other areas such as, say, Southend? (this has happened before, but perhaps not as directly as now proposed.)
local planning authorities… should… consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
Does that phrase about increased consumer choice give more leverage for new supermarkets to be built? (some residents may welcome this, many others will be concerned about the viability of town centres)
…….To further ensure that development can go ahead, all local authorities should reconsider, at developers’ request, existing section 106 agreements that currently render schemes unviable, and where possible modify those obligations to allow development to proceed; provided this continues to ensure that the development remains acceptable in planning terms.
So even where developers have agreed to fund new open space, education or health provision or highways improvements, developers can pressurise councils to CANCEL these funding agreements?
Mr Clark is the Minister for Decentralisation. That should be about giving coucnils more power and freedom, not less.
Ron Oatham
Trevor Parrett
Bruce Smart
Chris Stanley
Pam Waldie
Elena Black
Rochford District Council carries out grass cutting on behalf of the County Council.
If you see a grass verge that badly needs cutting, you can report it
This is the official master document for planning policy in our district! To download it, click here
March 26th, 2011 at 11:03
I wonder if Tesco had a preview of this statement, given their pulling of the proposal of building social housing along with their new Tesco store in Southend High Street?
March 27th, 2011 at 10:03
This is a very worrying statement in view of the governments previous intention for “localism” the guidlines are yet again dictated from central goverment .From the statement it appears we will have less control with these proposals than with the previous regime .I hope that some influence from our lib dem coalition partners will modify this stance otherwise I see indiscriminate developement along the Southend borders as well as larger developements on the west of Rayleigh with no additional infrastructure as developers will claim poverty and modification of their section 106 agreements .We can take no more additional population here apart from natural local needs .
March 28th, 2011 at 02:03
Re the above and the recent posting regarding a planning application for 175 homes in Hawkwell.
Shaun Scrutton has advised me that Standard Charges (“Community Infrastructure Levy” – CIL)will not come in to effect until 2013. Applications in the interim will continue to use Section 106 agreements. I suspect this, combined with the new regulations as above, means that CILs are likely to be watered down even before they start.
So, going back to the Core Strategy, new housing is initially focussed in the Rochford/Hawkwell/Ashindon area with few highways improvements and no contributions to improvements outside the immediate area of each development. This will mean that Rayleigh/Rawrth/Hullbridge is likely to catch much of that new traffic and, in due course, the extra traffic from new housing in that area. What chance of adequate funding to undertake meaningful road improvements?
I find it very difficult to see how we will ever improve our highways.